(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Fulfilling the letter and spirit of the law : desegregation of the nation's public schools : a report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights"

^ ^ /, tf; L *///S 



FULFILLING THE 
LETTER AND SPIRIT 
OF THE LAW 

UNIV OF MD MARSHALL LAW LIBRARY 



3 mSfi D110SS7S T > >^ 



DESEGREGATION OF 
THE NATION'S PUBLIC 
SCHOOLS 

A REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES 
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 
AUGUST 1976 



UNIVERSITY Of MM*^^".' 




^^ 



# 



# 



.^^^:..N^^ 



#v 



#^\,^s# 



\>V> 



# 



#" 



#^ 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 



U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 
Washington, D. C. 
August 1976 



THE PRESIDENT 

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE 

THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Sirs: 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights presents this report to 
you pursuant to Public Law 8 5-315 as amended. 

This document contains the Commission's evaluation of school 
desegregation in a variety of school districts throughout 
the country. The information on which this report is based 
was obtained primarily from a series of Commission-initiated 
efforts, including four full Commission hearings, four State 
Advisory Committee open meetings, a mail survey to possible 
respondents in 1,291 districts, and 900 indepth interviews 
in 29 school districts throughout the country. 

As a result of these recent initiatives and nearly 20 years' 
experience, the Commission is uniquely qualified to assess 
the Nation's progress in desegregating its schools and to 
identify factors that contribute to effective desegregation. 

The report reveals that in most communities desegregation 
has gone peacefully and smoothly--f or every Boston and 
Louisville there are dozen of other communities, which have 
received no headlines and attracted no television coverage, 
where desegregation is proceeding without major incident. 
Desegregation is being accomplished in these communities by 
individuals who believe that compliance with the law is the 
American way and requires no fanfare. 

The report also indicates that much work remains to be done 
before equal educational opportunity can become a reality. 
The Commission believes that the information contained in 
this report will assist in clarifying the issues surrounding 
school desegregation and will facilitate positive action by 
those responsible for our children's education. 



We urge your consideration of the facts presented in this 
report. 

Respectfully, 



Arthur S. Flemming, Chairman 
Stephen Horn, Vice Chairman 
Frankie M. Freeman 
Manuel Ruiz, Jr. 
Robert Rankin* 
Murray Saltzman 



John A. Buggs, Staff Director 



*Dr. Rankin, professor emeritus, Duke University, and member 
of the Commission since 1960, died June 4, 1976, prior to 
final action on this report. 



FULFILLING THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW 

Desegregation of the Nation's Public Schools 



A Report of the United Statei 
Commission on Civil Rights 
August 1976 



. US' 



U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 



The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is a temporary, 
independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 
1957 and directed to: 

• Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are 
being deprived of their right to vote by reason of 
their race, color, religion, sex, or national 
origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices; 

• Study and collect information concerning legal 
developments constituting a denial of equal 
protection of the laws under the Constitution 
because of race, color, religion, sex, or national 
origin, or in the administration of justice; 

• Appraise Federal laws and policies with respect to 
equal protection of the laws because of race, 
color, religion, sex, or national origin, or in 
the administration of justice; 

• Serve as a national clearinghouse for information 
in respect to denials of equal protection of the 
laws because of race, color, religion, sex, or 
national origin; 

• Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to 
the President and the Congress. 



MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION 

Arthur S. Flemming, Chairman 
Stephen Horn, Vice Chairman 
Frank ie M. Freeman 
Robert S. Rankin * 
Manuel Ruiz, Jr. 
Murray Saltzman 

John A. Buags, Staff Director 



*Dr. Rankin, professor emeritus, Duke University, and 
member of the Commission since 1960, died June 4, 1976, 
prior to final action on this report. 



Preface 



We welcome the opportunity in this bicentennial year to 
present to the Nation a report on the desegregation of our 
schools. 

In 1776 the founders of our Nation, in the Declaration 
of Independence, embraced the self-evident truths "that all 
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these 
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." They 
declared that the conditions under which they were living 
were destructive of these ends. Therefore, for the support 
of the Declaration, "with a firm reliance on the protection 
of Divine Providence," they mutually pledged to each other 
their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. The 
implementation of that pledge gave to the world a new 
Nation — a Nation which rests on the foundation of a 
Constitution that has evolved in such a manner as to reflect 
the "self-evident truths" of the Declaration. 

Eighty-five years later Abraham Lincoln declared in 
Philadelphia on his way to take the oath of office as 
President that embodied in the Declaration of Independence 
was that "which gave promise that in due time the weights 



would be lifted from the shoulders of men and all should 
have an equal chance." Some men and women were not being 
given that equal chance. A civil war was fought. The 
sacrifices of that war preserved us as a Nation dedicated to 
implementing the "self-evident truths" of the Declaration 
and the Constitution. 

In 1976 our Nation can move from strength to strength 
only as we apply to the conditions that confront us these 
same "self-evident truths." Any retreat will deprive us of 
the power that comes only to those who embrace the truth. 

This is what the desegregation of our schools is all 
about. The United States Supreme Court has found that 
segregated schools constitute a denial of the "self-evident 
truths" embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the 
Constitution — a violation of the covenant that all should 
have an equal chance. 

The desegregation of our schools provides this 
generation with one of the most significant opportunities 
that has confronted any generation to demonstrate that the 
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are living 
documents embodying truths for which persons once again 
should be willing to make sacrifices. 

The evidence set forth in this report leads to the 
conclusion that many of our citizens are responding to this 



Vlll 



opportunity. We know, after listening to testimony under 
oath from approximately 500 citizens in Boston, Denver, 
Tampa, and Louisville and examining evidence from 29 other 
communities, that many are challenged by the moral and 
constitutional issues that are involved in the desegregation 
of our schools. They are making significant contributions 
to the implementation of the lUth amendment to the 
Constitition and, as a result, children and young persons in 
their communities are being provided with an equal chance 
that otherwise would be denied them. The rhetoric of the 
Declaration of Independence and the Constitition is once 
again being translated into action. 

There is opposition to desegregation. Some do not 
believe that all persons are created equal, are endowed with 
certain unalienable rights, and should have an equal chance. 
Some believe that the methods being employed to obtain 
desegregation, such as the transportation of pupils, are so 
objectionable that they should be abandoned. Once again the 
Nation is experiencing sharp divisions growing out of 
efforts to implement those "self-evident truths" 
incorporated in both the Declaration of Independence and the 
Cons ti tut i on . 

We believe that the evidence contained in this report 
demonstrates that the only way to bring the Nation together 



on this issue is through a prompt, vigorous inplementation 
of the constitutional right to equal educational 
opportunity. Where this has been and is being done, 
citizens discover that desegregation works. Their faith in 
the truths on which our Nation was founded is renewed. 

The bicentennial year must be more than a year of 
celebration. It must also be a year of renewed commitment 
to the truths embedded in the Declaration of Independence 
and the Constitution. It must be a year when these renewed 
commitments are reflected in actions. 

Those who have enlisted and will enlist in the cause of 
giving children and young persons an equal chance in the 
field of education are making such a commitment. This 
Commission salutes you. The results of some of your actions 
are set forth in this report. 

Our hope is that increasing numbers of our citizens in 
this our bicentennial year "with a firm reliance on the 
protection of Divine Providence" will pledge to do all 
within their power to make the Declaration of Independence 
and the Constitution living documents in the lives of 
children and young people by giving them an equal chance for 
an education. 









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Commission is indebted to Emilio Abeyta, Karen 
Arrington, Rodney Cash, James Corey, Suzanne Crowell, Linda 
Dunn, Ernest Gerlach, Sally James, Margaret Johnson, Duane 
Lindstrom, Jane O'Connell, Ulysses Prince, Everett Waldo, 
Thomas Watson, Carole Williams, and John Williams, who wrote 
this report under the direct supervision of Frank Knorr. 

Appreciation is also extended to the following staff 
members and former staff members who provided support and 
assistance in the production of the report: Allison Adams, 
James Arisman, Evelyn Avant, Mary Avant, Richard Avena, 
Arvilla Baker-Pinkston, Mary Baltimore, Malcolm Bamett, 
Dolores Bartning, Richard Blanchard, Brenda Blount, Norman 
Bober, Eugene Bogen, Claudia Booker, Roberta Booker, Lucille 
Boston, Victor Bracero, Diane Brewer, Joseph Brooks, 
Claudette Brown, Jessalyn Bullock, Alice Burruss, Kathleen 
Buto. 

Also, Gloria Cabrera, Aurora Carvajal, Patricia 
Cheatham, Laura Chin, Ruth Cubero, Joanne Daniels, Edward 
Darden, Henry Dawson, Grace Diaz, Diane Diggs, Bobby Doctor, 
Frederick Dorsey, Richmond Doyle, John Dulles, Lucy Edwards, 
Patricia Ellis. 

Also, Antoinette Foster, Cynthia Freeman, Ruth Ford, 
Reece Fullerton, Irene Garcia, Lawrence Glick, Ramona Godoy, 



Elda Gordon, Marilyn Grayboff, Wallace Greene, Linda 
Gresham, Martha Grey, David Grimm, Treola Grooms, Geary 
Gunter, Edith Hammond, Joan Harper, Olga Harper, Joann 
Harris, Deborah Harrison, Kenneth Harris ton. 

Also, Jack Hartog, Ellen Haser, Vivian Hauser, Gloria 
Hernandez, Rita Higgins, Diane Hiligh, Valeska Hinton, Wanda 
Hoffman, Audree Holton, Peggy Hubble, Randy Hughes, Michael 
Ishikawa, Gregg Jackson, Lorraine Jackson, Robert Jeffers, 
Melvin Jenkins, Esther Johnson, Jeanette Johnson, Wanda 
Johnson, Martha Jones, Norma Jones, Nancy Langworthy, 
Cleveland Lee, Connie Lee, Sherry Lynn Lee. 

Also, William Levis, Hester Lewis, Williams Lewis, 
Joyce Long, James Lyons, Michele Macon, Rebecca Marrujo, 
Frank Matthews, Carol McCabe, Carmelo Melendez, Delores 
Miller, Alma Missouri, Philip Montez, Mary Moore, Grenda 
Morris, Charles Mueller, Carol Murray, Thomas Neumann, 
Gloria O'Leary, America Ortiz, David Pales, Maria Pares. 

Also, Ruth Peete, Thomas Pilla, Martha Proctor, Natalie 
Proctor, Pamela Proctor, Zenobia Purry, Linda Quinn, Portia 
Raby, Carolyn Reid, Patricia Reynolds, Sharon Rivers, Clark 
Roberts, Armando Rodriguez, Frederick Routh, Phyllis 
Santangelo, Jacob Schlitt, Mark Schnieder, Marvin Schwartz, 
Courtney Siceloff, Mark Simo, Deborah Snow, Joe Solis, Cathy 
Somers, Eliot Stanley, Shirley Staton, Francis Steiner. 



Xll 



Also, Donald Stocks, Victoria Squier, Sandra Tangri, 
Franklin Taylor, Ruthie Taylor, Eleanor Telemaque, Carlton 
Terry, Naomi Tinsley, Aloen Townsend, Robert Turner, 
Evangeline Urrutia, Norma Valle, Mardon Walker, Loretta 
Ward, Patsi Washington, Veronica Washington, Vivian 
Washington, Brenda Watts, Etta Wilkinson, Ada Williams, 
Mayme Williams, Jacques Wilmore, Louis Wilmot, Candy Wilson, 
and Shirley Hill Witt. 

This study has also been provided vital assistance in 
all its aspects by many members of State Advisory Committees 
to the Commission in 2 8 of the States. 

The report was prepared under the overall supervision 
of John Hope III, Assistant Staff Director, Office of 
Program and Policy Review. At the appointment of the Staff 
Director of the Commission, all staff activities that 
contributed to this report were under the general 
supervision and coordination of William T. White, Jr., 
Assistant Staff Director, Office of National Civil Rights 
Issues. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Introduction 1 

II. Recent Commission Initiatives 18 

Scope and Methodology- 18 

Four Hearings 

Boston, Massachusetts 25 

Denver, Colorado 39 

Hillsborough County (Tampa) , Florida 52 

Jefferson County (Louisville) , Kentucky 65 

Four Open Meetings 

Berkeley, California 85 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 91 

Stamford, Connecticut 99 

Corpus Christi, Texas 106 

Summary and Analysis of 29 School Districts 112 

National Survey 131 

III. Experience with School Desegregation 168 

The Role of Leadership 174 

Preparation of the Community 191 

Restructuring of School Districts 202 

Desegregation and the Quality of Education 206 

Minority Staff 222 

Classroom Desegregation — 233 

Extracurricular Activities— 241 

Students Attitudes 246 

Discipline in Desegregated Schools 255 

IV. Summary and Conclusions 293 



XV 



I. INTRODUCTION 

Four years after the Supreme Court of the United States 
decision in Brown v. Board of Education, * the school bell 
summoned America to the spectacle of screaming parents and 
troops with bayonets at the ready, escorting nine black 
students to Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. 

"I tried to see a friendly face," declared Elizabeth 
Eckford, one of the nine. "I looked into the face of an old 
woman and it seemed friendly, but when I looked at her again 
she spat on me." And then Elizabeth Eckford wept. 

Her tears were but the prologue to a long drama of 
struggle that is not yet over. The Nation is still 
confronted with a basic question. That question has been 
reworded at various times since 1954, but it remains 
essentially the same: Are the Elizabeth Eckfords of this 
country to be denied equality of educational opportunity 
merely because many people oppose the remedies for 
constitutional violations and subvert their implementation? 
The Supreme Court answered this question in 1955 in Brown 
II: "the vitality of these constitutional principles cannot 
be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with 
them. "2 Twenty-one years later, the implementing doctrine 



( Brown II ) providing equal protection of the laws to 
minority children is under renewed and intense attack. 

On July 10, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was 
published in the Pennsylvania Gazette . In that same issue, 
an advertisement also appeared offering a black slave for 
sale. 3 Thus our Nation came into existence 200 years ago 
with a serious flaw. The Constitution itself, as every 
student of history knows, bore the telltale marks in its 
first article, which apportioned representatives according 
to the free population and "three-fifths of all other 
Persons." For a short-lived period after the Civil War, the 
13th, mth, and 15th amendments protected the rights of 
black Americans. But the political compromise of 1877 
effectively ended this era, and in 1896 the Supreme Court of 
the United States sanctioned the second-class status of 
blacks in the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision.* 

By the early 1930s disparities in educational 
expenditures were evident in the South. In Randolph County, 
Georgia, $36.66 was expended annually for the education of 
each white child, while only 43 cents was spent on each 
black child. s Russell County, Alabama, spent $45.74 per 
white child each year and only $2.55 per black.* The values 
of educational facilities were similarly disproportionate. 
In Upson County, Georgia, for every $1.00 of the declared 



value of black schools, white schools were valued at 
$2,055.7 

It was not until 1938 that the coxintry began the long 
road to equality of educational opportunity. In that year, 
the Supreme Court embarked on a series of decisions 
attempting to enforce the "separate but equal" doctrine that 
led inexorably to the tardy rejection of that bankrupt 
maxim. 

In Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938) ,^ a black 
student sought entry to law school within his hone State. 
The State in turn offered to pay his tuition at an out-of- 
state institution. The Court held this offer to be "a 
denial of the equality of legal right to the enjoyment of 
the privilege which the State has set up... the provision for 
the payment of tuition fees in another State does not remove 
the discrimination. "9 

In 19U8 another black applicant asserted that she was 
entitled to a legal education at the University of Oklahoma 
Law school. The state contended that local law allowed for 
provision of a separate law school for blacks upon demand or 
notice and that the applicant had not sought such relief. 
In its decision in the case, Sipuel v. University of 
Oklahoma , ^ o the Supreme Court recognized that the petitioner 



could not be expected to wait for construction of a law 

school before completing her education. The Court stated: 

The petitioner is entitled to secure legal 
education afforded by a State institution. To 
this time, it has been denied her although during 
the same period many white applicants have been 
afforded legal education by the State. The State 
must provide it for her in conformity with the 
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment and provide it as soon as it does for 
applicants of any other group. i* 

Oklahoma tried another tack with a black student 
admitted to a State university graduate school. Under a new 
law, the student was provided an education on a segregated 
basis. He sat in a section of the classroom surrounded by a 
rail with a sign reading "Reserved for Colored." He was 
assigned one desk in the library and prohibited from using 
any other, and was required to eat in the cafeteria at a 
different time from all other students. 

This arrangement did not satisfy the Court. It ruled 

in McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) »2 that: 

[T]he State, in administering the facilities it 
affords for professional and graduate study, sits 
McLaurin apart from the other students. The 
result is that the appellant is handicapped in his 
pursuit of effective graduate instruction. .. .There 
is a vast difference — a Constitutional difference- 
-between restrictions imposed by the State which 
prohibit the commingling of students, and the 
refusal of individuals to commingle where the 
State presents no such bar....»3 



On the same day the Court decided in Sweatt v. 
Painter ^* that a new separate law school for blacks operated 
by the State of Texas could not, in reality, provide equal 
protection of the laws. In this case as well as in 
McLaurin , the Court emphasized the "intangibles" that make 
an educational institution equal: "Such qualities. . .include 
the reputation of the faculty, experience of the 
administration, position and influence of the alumni, 
standing in the community, traditions and prestige...."*' 
The Court added that the new black law school excluded 85 
percent of the population from which were drawn most of the 
lawyers, witnesses, jurors, judges, and other officials in 
the State that a black lawyer would eventually encounter. 
For this reason, the Court said, "We cannot conclude that 
the education offered petitioner is substantially equal to 
that which he would receive if admitted to the University of 
Texas Law School."** 

With the handwriting on the wall, the South launched a 
crash program to build separate but "equal" schools for 
blacks. But it was too late then to prove Plessy v. 
Ferguson a possible answer to the requirements of the lUth 
amendment. Four years later the Court declared that the 
considerations enumerated in Sweatt and in McLaurin "apply 
with added force to children in grade and high schools." The 



verdict was in, and after Brown segregation was legally 
doomed. Brown , however, was not the end of segregation so 
much as the beginning of desegregation. The Court's work 
was not over — the question of implementation remained. 

In this regard, the Court gave to the lower Federal 
courts the responsibility for dealing with specific plans 
and problems, so that plaintiffs would be admitted to public 
schools "on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all 
deliberate speed. "»'' "All deliberate speed" became the 
catchword that spawned massive resistance as the South 
deliberated but refused to desegregate. Ten years after 
Brown , only 1.2 percent of the nearly 3 million black 
students in the 1 1 Southern States attended school with 
white students. »• The Court was forced to conclude in 
Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward county (196U 
Virginia) that "The time for mere 'deliberate speed' has run 
out. ..."»» 

Prince Edward county had tried to solve the segregation 
problem by simply abolishing its public schools, but other 
school districts found less dramatic ways temporarily to 
circumvent the law. Chief among these was the "freedom of 
choice" plan that ostensibly permitted students to select 
the school they would attend. In practice, few chose to 
transfer. The Court took on this issue in Green v. County 



School Board of New Kent County (1968) ,20 ruling that such 
plans were unacceptable where speedier and more effective 
means were available. In addition, the Court stressed, "The 
burden of a school board today is to come forward with a 
plan that promises realistically to work, and promises 
realistically to work now."2i This urgency was reiterated 
the following year in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of 
Education, 22 where the Supreme Court ordered the court of 
appeals to "issue its decree and order, effective 
immediately. ... "23 

The techniques of desegregation became an issue again 
in Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education 
(1971) ,2* which became known as the first "busing" case. 
Busing had been the way to more equitable educational 
opportunity for millions of schoolchildren across the 
country. Furthermore, children had been bused long 
distances for decades to perpetuate segregation. But when 
transportation for the purposes of desegregation was 
decreed, busing suddenly became a national issue. The Court 
held that a school desegregation plan was "to be judged by 
its effectiveness"2 5 and that a plan might require student 
transportation as long as "the time or distance of travel is 
[not] so great as to either risk the health of the children 
or significantly impinge on the educational process. "2* 



At this point, the Court had not ruled on the future of 
school systems in States where segregation had never been 
the law but where segregated schools existed nevertheless. 
In these States, such segregation was said to be de facto 
rather than de jure . This distinction appeared before the 
Court in the case of Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, 
Colorado (1973) .27 The Court declared that "...where no 
statutory dual system has ever existed, plaintiffs must 
prove that it was brought about or maintained by intentional 
State action. "28 This the plaintiffs had done, and the Court 
thus ordered that desegregation proceed. Its decision meant 
that countless northern school districts, guilty of such 
practices as gerrymandering school zones, setting up 
segregatory feeder systems, and assigning staff on a 
racially discriminatory basis, would be faced with 
correcting these violations of constitutional rights. But 
it also meant that plaintiffs would have to present 
convincing evidence of official action responsible for dual 
school systems on a case-by-case basis. 

The consequences of massive resistance by the South 
need little repetition here. Schools were closed; State 
funds were cut off; compulsory attendance laws were 
suspended or repealed; private schools were opened with 
tuition paid for whites by public funds. Long dead 

8 



constitutional doctrines were revived to buttress stalling 
tactics. 

What has not been placed in proper perspective are the 
actions of school districts in the North and West. There 
official actions of school boards too frequently have 
obstructed, delayed, and denied the minority student equal 
protection of the law. The actions of governmental bodies 
responsible for segregation have been ignored in the heated 
debate over remedies. 

A clear example is the city of Boston. It would be 
totally misleading to examine the equity of the remedy 
ordered in the Boston case, Morgan v. Hennigan (1974), 29 
without considering the findings of the court. Yet this is 
what many political leaders and media commentators have 
done. The judge in this case, W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., laid 
out the basis for his ruling in a meticulously documented 
opinion. 

In the purchase and construction of new facilities, the 
judge found "The overwhelming effect... has been to increase 
racial segregation." In one situation, black children were 
bused involuntarily to a more distant school when seats were 
vacant at nearby white schools. ^o With regard to 
districting. Judge Garrity wrote: 



Year after year the defendants rejected proposals 
for redistricting carefully drawn with a view to 
lessening racial imbalance, while at all times 
displaying an awareness of the potential racial 
impact of their actions. 3 ^ 

One assistant superintendent testified at the trial of 

the case that he opposed redistricting in one instance 

"because he knew the attitude of the people in the area. "32 

In another instance, the judge noted: 

[The district] configuration results in nearly the 
maximum possible amount of racial 
isolation. .. .Only small sections of the district 
lines coincide with natural boundaries. ... ^3 

In Boston, the judge noted, assignment to a particular 
high school is determined not by geography, but "by a 
combination of seat assignments, preferences and options 
collectively called feeder patterns. "3* Various elementary 
and intermediate schools feed into high schools at various 
grade levels depending on whether the high schools run from 
grade 9 to 12 or 10 to 12. The judge concluded that these 
feeder patterns "since. .. 1966. . .have been manipulated with 
segregative effect. "35 

Open enrollment, similar to the freedom-of -choice plans 
so popular in the South, was another tool of the Boston 
School Committee. "Open enrollment as administered by the 
defendents," the judge said, "became a device for separating 
the races and contributed significantly to the establishment 



10 



of a dual school system."'* Black parents sending their 
children to predominantly white schools were chasing a will- 
o'-the-wisp, since whites were free under the system to 
transfer elsewhere when integration appeared imminent. 

The court found that in the 1971-72 school year when 
the student population in Boston schools was 96,000: 

Approximately one-third of Boston's students, a 
large majority of whom are in high school, use 
buses or other public transportation to travel to 
and from school. Approximately 3,000 elementary 
students are transported at city expense, most of 
whom attend schools over a mile away from their 
homes. In Charlestown some elementary students 
who live less than a mile from school are bused 
for safety reasons. Other elementary students are 
bused several miles, e.g., from the Dearborn 
district in Roxbury to the North End and East 
Boston; others from the South End to Brighton. 
The three examination high schools, sometimes 
called the "elite schools," were served in the 
school year 1971-72 by a combined total of 63 
buses on 35 routes. Many other students travel 
between distant parts of the city.'^ 

Faculty and staff were racially separated as well, 

despite the fact that their dispersal would not have 

required busing. The judge found that "Black teachers are 

segregated at black schools, ,. .Black administrators are also 

segregated."'* Black schools more frequently were assigned 

less experienced and less qualified teachers, and "the 

defendants have for years 'gone through the motions' of 

recruiting black teachers, but have never made a 

wholehearted effort to get results."" 



11 



The school committee offered standard defenses: that 
housing segregation led to the segregation found in the 
schools, and that their policy of maintaining neighborhood 
schools was constitutionally sound. ♦<> The plaintiffs pointed 
out that school district assignments themselves can affect 
housing patterns; that the school committee intentionally 
incorporated residential segregation into the school system; 
and that the committee policies were riddled with so many 
exceptions designed to increase segregation that its 
defenses need not be considered.** 

The judge agreed, stating: "The defendents have, with 
awareness of the racial segregation of Boston's 
neighborhoods, deliberately incorporated that segregation 
into the school system."* 2 

It is for all these reasons that school desegregation, 
implemented through student transportation, was ordered in 
Boston. The basis in law is really no different from that 
in Brown. The standard of proof has evolved, but the ruling 
is still based on the official actions of a government body, 
to wit: "....[T]he defendants have knowingly carried out a 
systematic program of segregation affecting all of the 
city's students, teachers, and school facilities and ... 
maintained a dual school system. "♦' 



12 



In 1966 an attempt in the House of Representatives to 
legitimize freedom-of-choice plans barely failed, by a vote 
of 127 to 136. ♦♦ In a press ccxiference shortly after the 
issuance of the Swann decision in 1971, President Nixon 
indicated that the decision, which sanctioned the use of 
busing in remedying de jure segregation, was the law of the 
land and would be enforced by the executive branch. Soon 
thereafter, the administration reversed its position and 
announced it would not grant funds for court-ordered busing 
under the Emergency School Assistance Program and proposed 
that the Congress prohibit such funding in the future.** 

In 1972 Congress wrangled over several antibusing 
amendments to pending legislation and President Nixon 
delivered a nationally televised address attacking "massive 
busing" and announced that he was sending legislation to the 
Congress designed to limit busing.** In 1974 President Ford 
stated at a press conference that he thought the law should 
be obeyed, but then went on to note that he had 
"consistently opposed forced busing to achieve racial 
balance as a solution to quality education."*^ More 
recently, the President has proposed legislation that would 
require the courts to limit the definition of illegal 
segregation and to limit the extent and duration of busing 
as a remedy. In addition. Attorney General Levi has 

13 



indicated that the Department of Justice may seek review by 
the Supreme Court of certain aspects of busing, although the 
issues he cited have already been considered and disposed of 
by the courts. ♦« 

The tragedy of these developments, and others discussed 
later in this report, is that they undermine the 
desegregation process in communities across the country. 
And despite the publicity given to violence in Pontiac, 
Boston, and Louisville, numerous communities have 
implemented the law peacefully. Although largely ignored by 
politicians and the national press, these communities 
represent in many ways the real story of desegregation 
today. 



14 



Notes to Chapter 1 

1. 347 U.S. 483 (1954) . 

2. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, at 300 
(1955) . 

3. Pennsylvania Gazette , No. 2481, July 10, 1776, 
Philadelphia, Pa., p. 4. 

4. 163 U.S. 537 (1896) . 

5. Charles S. Johnson, Statistical Atlas of Southern 
Counties (Chapel Hill; University of North Carolina, 1941), 
p. 107. 

6. Ibid., p. 52. 

7. Ibid., p. 111. 

8. 305 U.S. 337 (1938) . 

9. 305 U.S. at 349. See Argument: The Complete Oral 
Argument before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of 
Education of Topeka, 1952 - 55 , ed. Leon Friedman (New York: 
Chelsea House Pijblishers, 1969), pp. xiv-xvii for a summary 
of pre-Brown cases. 

10. 332 U.S. 631 (1948) . 

11. 332 U.S. at 632-33. 

12. 339 U.S. 637 (1950) . 

13. 339 U.S. at 641. 

14. 339 U.S. 629 (1959) . 

15. 339 U.S. at 634. 

16. Id. 

17. 349 U.S. 294 at 301 (1955). 

18. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, Twenty Years After 
Brown ; Eguality of Educational Opportunity (1975) , p. 46. 



15 



19. 337 U.S. 218 at 23U (1964). 

20. 391 U.S. U30 (1968) . 

21. 391 U.S. at U39. 

22. 396 U.S. 19 (1969) . 

23. 396 U.S. at 20. 
2H. a02 U.S. 1 (1971). 

25. a02 U.S. at 25. 

26. 402 U.S. at 30-31. 

27. 413 U.S. 189 (1973) . 

28. 413 U.S. at 198. 

29. 379 F. Supp. 410 (D. Mass. 1974) 

30. Id. at 428. 

31. Id. at 433. 

32. Id. at 438. 

33. Id. at 435. 

34. Id. at 441. 

35. Id. at 442. 

36. Id. at 453. 

37. Id. at 424. 

38. Id. at 459.' 

39. Id. at 464. 

40. Id. at 469. 

41. Id. at 470. 

42. Id. 

16 



U3. Id. at 482. 

4U. Michael Wise, "Congress, Busing, and Federal Law," 
Civil Rights Digest , vol. 5, no. 5, p. 30. 

45. Ibid., p. 31. 

46. Ibid., pp. 31-33. 

47. Press Documents , Oct. 11, 1974. 

48. New York Times , May 30, 1976, p. 1. 



17 



II. RECENT COMMISSION INITIATIVES 
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

The Commission on Civil Rights in recent years has been 
increasingly concerned about the lack of accurate 
information and understanding on school desegregation. This 
problem, from the Commission's viewpoint, threatens further 
progress in school desegregation and other areas of civil 
rights as well. In November 1975 the Commission, therefore, 
announced a series of projects to provide the Nation with a 
national assessment of the school desegregation effort,* 
These projects included formal hearings, open meetings, case 
studies, and a national survey, the findings of which are 
incorporated into this report. Other sources of information 
for this report include: previous Commission studies on 
desegregation or other school-related considerations; 2 
publications by organizations such as the Southern Regional 
Council; 3 and recent articles in periodicals, journals, and 
newspapers. These various sources provided data for 
analysis and also the views of key participants in the 
desegregation of school districts throughout the country, 
(See map 2.1,) 

The school districts studied and surveyed during this 
research were selected in order to provide a broad cross- 
section of districts representing the entire spectrum of 

18 



views and experiences concerning school desegregation. 
Those districts differ in many respects, such as the 
original impetus for desegregation, the nature of public 
reaction, the effectiveness of planning, the length of 
experience with desegregation, and the general success or 
ease with which desegregation has been implemented. 
However, these projects have enabled the Commission to draw 
conclusions about overall progress in desegregating the 
Nation's schools and to identify factors that contribute to 
effective desegregation. 
Public Hearings 

The Commission held public hearings on school 
desegregation in four major cities: Boston, June 16-20, 
1975; Denver, February 17-19, 1976; Tampa, March 29-31, 
1976; and Louisville, June m-16, 1976. 

Each of the four hearings was preceded by intensive 
staff investigation. A combined total of approximately 
U,500 persons were interviewed for all four hearings. At 
least 100 persons were subpenaed and testified under oath at 
each hearing, including Federal, State, and local officials; 
representatives of business, law enforcement, religious, and 
other community groups, as well as higher education and the 
media; school officials and personnel, including school 
board members, administrators, and faculty; and parents and 

19 



students. The witnesses included persons of diverse racial 
and ethnic groups, as well as persons with differing views 
toward desegregation. In addition to the 100 or so 
individuals scheduled to testify, there were between 10 and 
15 unscheduled witnesses who testified at each hearing. 
The hearings covered all aspects of desegregation, 
ranging from the history of the first desegregation efforts, 
through the manifold dynamics of the implementation process 
in the schools and the broader community, to retrospective 
evaluation of the actual effects of desegregation on the 
schools as a public institution and on students, teachers, 
and other individuals affected directly or indirectly. In 
particular, inquiry was directed toward specific reasons why 
desegregation had proceeded smoothly or had serious 
difficulties. Certain topics also received more attention 
at one hearing than at another. Thus the Boston and 
Louisville hearings focused in more detail on the role of 
the police during desegregation. The importance of 
bilingual education in desegregating school districts 
received much attention at the Denver and Tampa hearings. 



20 




21 



Open Meetings 

Four State Advisory Committees (SACs) to the Commission 
conducted four open meetings on school desegregation in 1976 
in Berkeley, California, March 19-20; Minneapolis, 
Minnesota, April 22-2U; Stamford, Connecticut, April 29; and 
Corpus Christi, Texas, May 4-5.* 

Preparations for the meetings and the scope of 
testimony resembled that of the public hearings. However, 
Advisory Committees do not have subpena power and testimony 
was not taken under oath. Approximately 50 persons spoke at 
each open meeting. Detailed evaluations and analyses of 
these meetings were prepared by the State Advisory 
Committees and the Commission's regional offices in Los 
Angeles, Chicago, New York, and San Antonio. 
Case Studies 

In February, March, and April 1976, 28 of the 
Commission's State Advisory Committees, with staff 
assistance from the eight regional offices, conducted 29 
case studies of school desegregation. Four studies covered 
the four cities where Advisory Committee meetings were held. 
Table 2. 1 shows the communities studied by State and 
Commission region. 

These districts are of varying size and racial-ethnic 
composition. All had a student enrollment of at least 

22 



1,500, of which at least 5 percent were minority students. 
Some had desegregated voluntarily while others desegregated 
under Federal or State pressure or a court order. At least 
10 percent of the students in each district were reassigned 
during desegregation, and transportation was included in all 
desegregation plans. The sample included both rural and 
urban districts with varying years of experience with 
desegregation. Some districts had desegregated with minimal 
difficulty and some had experienced considerable problems. 

Commission staff and Advisory Committee members 
conducted personal interviews in each district with mayors, 
city council members, and law enforcement authorities; 
community leaders; school officials and personnel; parents 
and students; and media representatives. Standardized 
guides were used for both onsite and telephone interviews to 
elicit information about the individual's own role in 
desegregation, as well as his or her perceptions of events 
and the role played by others during desegregation. They 
also were designed to elicit personal judgments about the 
effectiveness of desegregation in their communities and the 
overall effect of desegregation on the schools and 
communities. In addition to these interviews. Advisory 
Committee members and regional staff collected data and 
reports pertinent to desegregation in each district. The 

23 



Commission's regional offices analyzed and summarized the 
results of this research and submitted them to Washington 
for further evaluation. 
National Survey 

In late January 1976 the Commission mailed 
questionnaires to individuals in a randomized sample of 
approximately 1,300 school districts. These individuals 
included school superintendents, heads of local chambers of 
commerce, parent advisory councils, and local chapters of 
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People (NAACP) , and mayors or city managers. The districts 
included the 100 largest in the Nation, and approximately 47 
percent of districts which had pupil enrollments of at least 
1,500 and were at least 5 percent minority. 

Information was sought on the stimulus for 
desegregation, the nature of the desegregation plan 
implemented, and the outcome of desegregation. The 
variables used for assessment were the perceived support for 
desegregation by community leaders and groups, the degree of 
disruption of the educational process during desegregation, 
and the perceived quality of education. The survey also 
sought to examine the withdrawal of whites from school 
systems in response to desegregation. Superintendents were 
asked about the activities of any multiracial or multiethnic 

24 



committees, student suspension levels, and building 
improvements incident to desegregation. All those surveyed 
were asked about the extent and cost of pupil 
transportation, the role and attitudes of various community 
groups before and after desegregation, the quality of 
education, student retention and achievement, and 
interaction among pupils of different races or ethnic 
groups. Usable responses were received from about 76 
percent of the superintendents and 20 percent of the 
community leaders. Some responses were obtained by 
telephone. 
FOUR HEARINGS 
Boston, Massachusetts 

Massachusetts was the first State in the Nation to 
enact a school desegregation law, the Racial Imbalance Act 
of 1965.5 Under the law, any school with a nonwhite 
enrollment of more than 50 percent was "imbalanced," and 
strong sanctions were available against any school district 
that failed to correct such imbalance. The act did not 
require integration of all-white schools; it prohibited 
involuntary, inter district transportation; and its 
compliance guidelines were vague, opening avenues for 
procrastination and evasion which the Boston School 
Committee used fully. 

25 



TABLE 2.1 



Case Study Communities by State and Commission Region 



Northeast Regional Office 

Ossining, New York 
Providence, Rhode Island 
Springfield, Massachusetts 
Stamford, Connecticut** 



Mid-Western Regional Office 

Racine, Wisconsin 
Peoria, Illinois 
Kalamazoo, Michigan 
Minneapolis, Minnesota** 



Mid-Atlantic Regional Office 

Erie, Pennsylvania 
Newport News, Virginia 
Dorchester County, Maryland 
Raleigh County, West Virginia 

Southern Regional Office 



Mountain States Regional Office 

Ogden , Utah 

Colorado Springs, Colorado 

Tempe, Arizona 



Southwestern Regional Office 



Nashville, Tennessee 
Greenville, Mississippi 
Williamsburg County, South 
Carolina 



Bogalusa, Louisiana 
Tulsa, Oklahoma 
Little Rock, Arkansas 
Corpus Christi, Texas** 



Central States Regional Office Western Regional Office 



Wichita, Kansas 
Waterloo, Iowa 
Kirkwood, Missouri 



Portland, Oregon 
Tacoma, Washington 
Santa Barbara, California 
Berkeley, California** 



** Indicates school district in which Advisory Committee 
open meetings were held. 



26 



The city of Boston has a population of approximately 
611,000 people, many of whom live in neighborhoods with 
strong ethnic identities. Its black population is 
approximately 17 percent of the total and its student 
population is 34 percent black and 6 percent Hispanic. In 
1973, 85 percent of black public school students attended 
schools that were more than 50 percent minority; 5U percent 
attended schools that were 90 to 100 percent minority.* 

The Boston School Committee, which formulates policy 
for city public schools, proved unrelenting in its 
opposition to school desegregation. For 8 years following 
passage of the Racial Imbalance Act, State education 
authorities were unsuccessful in their efforts to compel the 
Boston School Committee to desegregate at least a 
substantial portion of its schools. Several State agencies 
became involved, including the State department of education 
and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. 
Suits and counter suits were filed in State courts. By 1971, 
however, Boston's public schools were more segregated than 
ever. 7 

The Federal Government became involved for the first 
time in 1971 when the Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare wrote to the Boston School Committee charging 
discrimination in certain educational programs. Two years 

27 



later HEW threatened to cut off all Federal education funds 
to the city.* 

In March 1972 the local chapter of the NAACP filed suit 
in Federal district court, alleging government 
discrimination in creating and maintaining a segregated 
public school system. In June 197U the Federal district 
court in Boston rejected the school committee's defense that 
housing patterns were responsible for school segregation. 

The court found that the school committee had 
unconstitutionally fostered and maintained a segregated 
public school system through policies which had been 
"knowingly" designed to that end.^ As a result of these 
policies, the court found, racial segregation permeated 
schools "in all areas in the city, all grade levels, and all 
types of schools. "»o The court also observed that the school 
committee had thwarted school desegregation efforts of 
Massachusetts authorities, including the State supreme 
court, by "formalistic compliance followed by 
procrastination and evasion on technical grounds."** 

The court ordered desegregation to begin in September 
197U. The plan for desegregation involved two phases. 
Phase I, implemented in September 197U, used redistricting 
and pupil transportation to desegregate 80 of the city's 
approximately 200 schools. Phase II, implemented in 

28 



September 1975, involved all remaining schools, except those 
in east Boston. Revision of attendance zones and grade 
structures, construction of new schools and the closing of 
old ones, and a controlled transfer policy with limited 
exceptions were used to minimize further pupil 
transportation. 12 

Implementation of Phase I was accompanied by mob 
violence and boycotts in some areas of the city, the worst 
such incidents to occur during school desegregation in a 
northern city. In October 1974 Mayor Kevin White expressed 
concern about his ability to "maintain either the appearance 
or the reality of public safety" during desegregation in 
some parts of Boston, ^^ but order was generally established. 

In June 1975 the Commission on Civil Rights held a 5- 
day hearing in Boston and heard testimony from more than 100 
subpenaed witnesses, including Federal, State, and local 
officials, community leaders, school staff, and students. 
From this testimony and research conducted in connection 
with the hearing, the Commission gained significant insight 
into the desegregation process in Boston. 

The publicity surrounding opposition to desegregation 
in Boston overshadowed the fact that major problems occurred 
at only four of the schools desegregated in 1974. Violence 
was severe at only two. South Boston and Hyde Park High 

29 



Schools. The desegregation process proceeded smoothly at 

the great majority of schools affected by Phase I, and the 

groundwork was laid for even more progress the following 

year. »♦ 

At the Jeremiah E. Burke High School in Roxbury, for 

example, many faculty and students viewed desegregation and 

the school year generally as a success, Burke teacher 

Joseph Day testified: 

...the kids by October realized if they didn't do 
their work and weren't going to study, they were 
going to fail.... There was a lot of education, a 
lot of learning, a lot of teaching going on in the 
building, and the kids realized it. »' 

Burke student Jan Douglas told the Commission: 

At first. . .everybody was kind of scared because no 
one had really talked to each other to know where 
each other stood. Everybody was kind of walking 
around each other. And as the year progressed, we 
talked and we got to understanding, and we found a 
common ground. .. .That we had all come to Jerry 
[Burke] for one thing, and that was to get a 
quality education and that in doing so, we would 
do it together.** 

The testimony of other witnesses, however, revealed 

that school desegregation in Boston was seriously hampered 

by virtually a total lack of public and private leadership. 

The city's elected officials refused to express support for 

the court order or for the goal of school desegregation. 

The school committee's position was one of determined, 

unrelenting opposition to desegregation. It had fought 



30 



school desegregation from the beginning, and it refused any 

affirmative support for peaceful implementation of school 

desegregation. 

The chairman of the Boston School Committee stated: 

...For my part, I will not go any further than 
doing what Judge Garrity directly orders me to do. 
And I will not end up as a salesman for a plan 
which I do not believe in.i^ 

A member said: 

It would appear that we have exhausted some of our 
legal remedies. I think we still have — at least 
on the implementation process--some appeals. 

My instruction, and of course I am only one vote, 
to appeal every word that comes out of Garrity's 
mouth . 

So hopefully, somewhere along the line we can get 
some relief, because this order is just a 
destruction of the city.... is 

The picture that emerged in 5 days of testimony was of an 

elected body so belligerent* » and so derelict in its duties 

that the Commission recommended that the court consider 

suspending the school committee's authority and placing the 

school system in receivership, a step that was partially 

taken by Judge Garrity in connection with Phase II of the 

court's desegregation order. 

The records of other public officials — some of whom 

openly associated themselves with the "antibusing" 

organization, "Restore Our Alienated Rights" (ROAR) --were 



31 



little better. City council members stongly opposed the 

court order, 2 and several State legislators from Boston 

introduced legislation to repeal the State's Racial 

Imbalance Act. The mayor's position on desegregation was 

equivocal, and on the national level, the lack of leadership 

extended to the White House. In October 1974 the President 

issued a public statement critical of the court order. 

According to Thomas Atkins, president of the Boston 

NAACP, : 

...those kinds of hopes [that a desegregation 
order would be reversed] were fed by 
statements. .. such as the one by the President 
when... he indicated disagreement with... the order 
of the Federal Court.... 21 

The posture of elected officials reinforced the belief 

of many individuals that desegregation, which had been 

successfully avoided for 10 years, would never come about. 

Rabbi Roland Gittelson said: 

I'm very fearful that there will be increased 
tension and aggravation so long as the members of 
the Boston School Committee and many political 
leaders continue to make the whole desegregation 
problem a political football for their own 
political ambitions. ... 22 

The absence of leadership involved all sectors of the 

city. Business leaders were generally passive, in part 

because of the mayor's position. Relatively few of the 

clergy provided strong moral leadership. Many social and 



32 



community service agencies also adopted neutral positions 

toward school desegregation. South Boston community groups, 

for example, neither assisted nor supported implementation 

of Phase I. This default at the community level, combined 

with the lack of guidance or leadership from city leaders, 

damaged the educational process in Boston. 

Testimony made plain that the principal leadership for 

desegregation in Boston came from the U.S. district court. 

The court did not seek or arbitrarily seize that role. It 

was forced upon the court because, as Thomas Atkins, local 

NAACP leader, observed: 

The mayor [Kevin White] from time to time has 
refused to lead and has tried to hide. The 
Governor, this one [Michael Dukakis] and the last 
one, [Francis Sargent] from time to time has tried 
to say it's the mayor's problem, it's the judge's 
problem, it's anybody's problem; it's not my 
problem. 2 3 

Moreover, Judge W. Arthur Garrity, Jr. , in his 

desegregation order was careful not to raise unreasonable 

administrative problems for the school system. Student 

transportation was held to a minimum, and the percentage of 

total enrollment transported increased by only 17 percentage 

points after desegregation. 2* Further, court-ordered bus 

rides were short, a fact that, in part, reflects the 

geographical compactness of Boston. 2 s 



33 



Lack of leadership was also evident in the near total 

absence of effective planning for desegregation. Strong 

criticism was expressed of the "ill-defined low visibility 

policy" of the Boston Police Department and its lack of a 

"detailed master plan" for maintaining order during 

desegregation. 2 6 Black community leader Elma Lewis described 

the effect of this failure in South Boston: 

One of the most disenchanting experiences [our 
chilc|ren] had was the day that they were set upon 
in South Boston High and the police expressed an 
inability to bring them out safely and they got 
out only by luck.... 2 7 

The situation became so dangerous that State police and 

Metropolitan District Commission police were called in to 

assist the Boston police. 

Haphazard planning also typified the school 

administration's response to the court order. Desegregation 

training and guidelines for faculty were minimal. No effort 

was made to involve the communities affected by Phase I, nor 

was any effort made to promote student attendance. A sharp 

increase in the suspension rate of black students occurred. 

One data analyst found the great disparity between white and 

black suspension rates to be "systematically related to 

race. "28 

At the few schools where strong, conscientious 
administrators prepared effectively for desegregation, 

3U 



difficulties were minor. At Roslindale High School, for 
example, curriculum content was reviewed, and the social 
studies program was changed to deal with race relations and 
the background to school desegregation. An ethnic studies 
course was planned for Phase II. 2 » Roslindale teachers also 
visited the 30 schools sending students to Roslindale under 
the desegregation plan.'" Strong community support was 
another "key factor" contributing to relatively successful 
implementation of desegregation at Roslindale, '» 

Phase II of the desegregation effort provided a basis 
for improving the overall quality of education in Boston. A 
key feature of Phase II was the linking of various city 
schools with business and higher education institutions, 
labor organizations, and the arts. Local colleges and 
universities offered needed resources in the development of 
reading and communication skills, cross-cultural relations, 
mathematics and science, counseling, teacher training, 
preventive health care and health-related problems, social 
work, and many other areas. 

As the court noted: 

The significance of this pairing effort is as a 
long-term commitment, a promise to the parents and 
students of Boston that these institutions, with 
their rich educational resources, are concerning 
themselves in a direct way with the quality of 
education in the public schools.'* 



35 



Phase II also was designed to provide greater parental 
and community involvement in school affairs. A Citywide 
Coordinating Council, consisting of 42 citizens of varying 
opinions regarding desegregation, was assigned a monitoring, 
coordinating, and informational role in Boston school 
desegregation. The mayor's key aide for school 
desegregation, Peter Meade, expressed the hope that the 
council would fill the leadership "vacuum" in Boston. ^3 
Biracial parent and student councils at various schools were 
to serve as adjuncts to the council. Jim O* Sullivan, a 
South Boston parent who had served as a member of one 
biracial council, told the Commissioners: "if we could have 
half the success that the South Boston-Roxb\iry biracial 
council had, I think we will make great strides in getting 
quality education into the city of Boston this coming 
year. "3* 

The Commissioners heard testimony concerning other 
problems in Boston's schools, such as absence of black 
faculty, administrators, custodial persons, and attendance 
officers, 3 5 and rundown conditions of some schools, such as 
South Boston High School. A 1940 graduate of South Boston 
High told the Commissioners he was "shocked and ashamed" at 
the "appalling condition" of the school as Phase I began. ^6 



36 



It is clear, however, that some courageous leaders have 
resisted the prevailing winds of opposition. The black 
community provided many of these individuals. There have 
been instances of effective planning, notably by the deputy 
mayor with respect to public safety and neighborhood 
services, as well as by some individual school 
administrators. In addition, some police units, such as the 
State police, performed in a thoroughly professional and 
effective manner. Despite the failures described during 5 
days of testimony, ample evidence was heard that 
desegregation had proceeded smoothly at the great majority 
of schools during Phase I, and that further progress in 
Phase II was likely, particularly if the school committee 
would begin to provide the positive and creative leadership 
the school system so badly needs. 

Although a review of the 1975-76 school year indicates 
that the school committee and Mayor White have been 
criticized for failing to provide leadership to promote 
desegregation, 3 7 phase II can be characterized as showing 
greater stabilization within the school system. A few minor 
incidents were reported in the spring of 1976, but 
conditions at previously troubled schools, such as Hyde Park 
High3 8 and South Boston High, 3* reportedly had improved and 



37 



tension had diminished. The Mayor's Committee on Violence*o 
found that 150 out of 165 schools were "working well."*» 

School administrators expressed optimism over further 
progress under Phase II as a result of the refusal of the 
Attorney General of the United States to intervene in the 
appeal of Judge Garrity's Phase II order before the Supreme 
Court of the United States, and the Court's refusal to 
review four appeals of that order. They were pleased with 
increased involvement in the schools and improved 
administrative procedures in such areas as security.* 2 
Although a disproportionate number of black students 
continue to be suspended, the percentage has decreased. ♦^ 
The executive director of the Boston chapter of the NAACP 
observed that opposition to desegregation and student 
transportation had shifted to concern over the quality of 
education. ♦• 
Findings 

From the Boston hearing and more current sources, 
several findings are evident concerning the desegregation 
process in Boston: 

1. A virtual total lack of support for court 
desegregation orders by public and private leaders, 
especially the mayor, city council members, and those in 



38 



business, reinforced the opposition view that desegregation 
would never come to pass. 

2. President Ford's and Mayor White's equivocal public 
comments on the order of the Federal district court served 
to bolster opponents of school desegregation. 

3. Because of the Boston School Committee's position 
of unyielding opposition to desegregation and its minimal 
compliance with the Federal district court order, the court 
was forced to implement its decision to desegregate through 
a series of detailed orders formulating educational policy 
and directing the administrative process. 

H. Despite serious deficiencies in the planning and 
actions of the local police and Boston School Committee and 
sensationalized reporting of violence in South Boston by the 
national media, the overwhelming majority of schools in 
Boston which desegregated did so without difficulty. 
Significantly, the local news media, visual as well as 
written, provided balanced coverage of Phase I. 
Denver, Colorado 

School desegregation in Denver has involved nearly two 
decades of organized community activity. As early as the 
late 1950s, individuals in the Park Hill section of the city 
organized to fight the growing segregation of neighborhood 
schools. ♦* 

39 



Growing steadily since the 1950s, Denver is the major 
city of the Rocky Mountain region, with an economic base 
largely in professional services, trade, and public 
administration. It houses a considerable number of offices 
for agencies of the Federal Government. 

The city's population is slightly over half a million, 
and 19 75 estimates of the minority population indicate that 
more than 20 percent are Hispanic and about 12 percent are 
black.** Asian Americans and American Indians account for 
about 3 percent of the minority population. The student 
population of Denver's 122 public schools has a higher 
percentage of minorities than the general population, 
roughly 50 percent white, 27 percent Hispanic, and 19 
percent black. ♦^ 

School District No. 1 and the city and county of Denver 
have the same geographical boundaries, but fiscally and 
politically, the school district is independent of the city. 
It is governed by a seven-member board of education elected 
for staggered 6-year terms. The membership and ideology of 
the • board of education has been in constant flux since the 
mid-1960s when school desegregation became a serious issue 
in Denver. 

Concern over segregation developed over a period of 
many years as the community witnessed the various techniques 

UO 



by which the school board and administration manipulated the 
distribution of students. Mobile classrooms were used to 
increase pupil capacity at black schools instead of 
assigning students to underutilized white schools. As the 
minority population increased and residential patterns 
changed, attendance zones were changed and new schools were 
located in such a way as to contain blacks and continue the 
segregated education of black children. The exasperation of 
the community increased when the school board failed to 
respond to reports and recommendations submitted in 1962 and 
196 9 by the board's own citizens' committees assigned to 
study equality of educational opportunity.*" 

Community pressure for action reached a peak following 
the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King on April 5, 
1968. On the night of April 25, thousands of citizens 
attended a public school board meeting where Rachel Noel, 
the first black school board member, introduced a resolution 
instructing the school superintendent to submit an 
integration plan by the following September. The Noel 
resolution was passed at a subsequent meeting by a vote of 5 
to 2.*» 

Three resolutions the following spring provided 
concrete measures to alleviate school segregation. However, 
a school board election was held shortly thereafter which 



brought two new antidesegregation candidates to the board, 
and the first action of the new board was to rescind these 
resolutions, bringing to an end 10 years of cumulative 
effort to desegregate the schools. 'o 

On June 19, 1969, eight Denver schoolchildren and their 
parents filed suit, initiating nearly 6 years of litigation 
that would include two appeals to the United states Supreme 
Court, '1 In its first major desegregation decision outside 
the South, the Supreme Court ruled in June 1973 that the 
school board's segregative acts in one part of the city 
could require systemwide remedies. The Court also held that 
"Negroes and Hispanos in Denver suffer identical 
discrimination in treatment when compared with the treatment 
afforded Anglo students, "sz In April 1974 the Federal 
District Court for Colorado issued its final decree ordering 
desegregation of the Denver public school system. Both 
plaintiffs and defendants again appealed to the Supreme 
Court, and in January 1976 the Court declined to review the 
appeals, *3 

The U,S, commission on Civil Rights held a 3-day 
hearing in Denver in February 1976 to examine closely all 
elements of the city's school desegregation efforts. More 

than 120 witnesses Federal, State, and local officials; 

school administrators and staff; community leaders; parents 

42 



and students — provided testimony on desegregation as they 
told the overall story. 

Witnesses gave various opinions about expending so much 
time and money on lengthy court battles and appeals. Mrs. 
Noel told the Commission she considered the suit a necessity 
because "there was no real commitment. . .no real firm 
movement in the direction [of desegregation] until the suit 
was filed. "5* From a different perspective. School 
Superintendent Louis Kishkunas saw the process as "a 
necessary exercise to achieve whatever success we may 
achieve here." He said he thought the school district had 
been unduly criticized for appealing the case so vigorously, 
but the Supreme Court decision had removed all doubt about 
the issue. ss 

For successfully implementing "an unpopular court 
order," the superintendent credited the community for 
maturity and the staff for professionalism. He praised the 
school board for directing the use of "all available means 
at their disposal for an orderly and humane implementation 
of the orders of the district court so long as the order 
remains in effect. "56 

Other testimony, however, did not credit either the 
board or the school administration with more than minimal 
compliance, characterized by footdragging and inconsistent 

i|3 



leadership. Several witnesses agreed with Katherine Schomp, 

a school board member whose assessment was that the board 

has been unable or slow to act on problems incident to 

desegregation and has contributed few ideas or programs to 

the educational improvement of schools. S7 she listed some 

specific criticisms: 

The practice of blaming every problem in the 
schools on the desegregation order... A refusal to 
devote sufficient resources of personnel, time, 
and money to... deal positively and humanely with 
integration. A refusal to establish some kind of 
communication with the Community Education 
Council, thus failing to take advantage of a 
tremendous community resource. se 

The Community Education Council was named frequently as 

the most significant source of leadership in implementation 

of the court order. The council, created by the district 

court, was composed of UO community leaders. Its chairman, 

Maurice Mitchell, chancellor of the University of Denver and 

a former Commissioner of the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, said: 

The judge created a committee of citizens, not 
policemen or lawyers to sit around and nitpick his 
decision endlessly, but a committee of citizens 
and asked them to tell him how to make the decree 
work better. 5 9 

The council played a key role in educating the 
community on the constitutional requirements of the desegre- 
gation order. Its members also worked within the schools. 



44 



monitoring the process and keeping the court well apprised 
of the implementation of the order. 

The superintendent opposed creation of the council and 
sought to reduce its monitoring role because he "didn't 
agree with the necessity of having such a commission or 
someone looking over our shoulder."*© However, the council 
received consistent support from the court and was able to 
work well with school personnel, particularly at the 
principal level. 

The positive leadership of principals who believed that 

integration would work was also repeatedly credited for the 

overall smoothness of Denver's desegregation. Catherine 

Crandall, president of the Parents, Teachers, and Students 

Association, said: 

Schools that had good administrative leadership 
were able to correspond better with the teachers 
within the school building, who were then able to 
transmit their feelings to the students and 
parents .... They could [ then ] proceed on a much 
more harmonious basis ....*» 

Many witnesses told the Commission that widespread and 

continued involvement of citizens was the major reason for 

the absence of violence and hostility that desegregation 

decrees have met in other cities. Mentioned frequently as a 

highly successful example of citizen action was an 

organization called PLUS (People Let's Unite for Schools). 



45 



This coalition of 49 organizations was created in April 197U 

to promote the principles of obedience to the law, safety 

for all schoolchildren, and excellence of education in 

Denver. 

Leaders of the religious community in Denver, through 

ecumenical efforts of the Council of Churches and individual 

participation in PLUS, also were an active moral force 

supporting peaceful school desegregation. Melvin Wheatly, 

Methodist Bishop of Denver, testified: 

We communicated with all of our clergy from the 
beginning of the plan... that our position [for the 
integration of schools] is unequivocal. . .part of 
the design that we interpret as God's will.*2 

Bishop George Evans of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese 
of Denver said that a directive was sent to Catholic 
parishes "alerting them... that Catholic schools are 
dedicated to the principles which are at the heart of 
democracy and in no way would be a haven for those trying to 
flee the law. "63 

The Denver Chamber of Commerce, the Denver Commission 
on Community Relations, and many public officials worked 
individually, with community groups, and with District Court 
Judge William Doyle urging "community support for the 
acceptance and good faith implementation of the court 
order."** The mayor and police chief early issued statements 



46 



urging peaceful implementation of the school desegregation 
process. 

witnesses agreed that the media was cooperative, fair, 
balanced, and responsible in its coverage throughout the 
desegregation process.** Except for the efforts of 
individual faculty members, institutions of higher learning 
in the Denver area were criticized as indifferent to "the 
leadership role that they are both capable of... and have a 
responsibility" to exercise. •• 

The best assessment of the effects of desegregation was 
given by those whose lives are most affected, students, 
parents, and teachers. Several teachers testified that, in 
general, policies which have advanced school desegregation 
also have a beneficial effect on other aspects of the 
educational process, including academic achievement. 
Included were comments such as: "the desegregation process 
brought a new atmosphere. . .new enthusiam for learning," "the 
level of parental involvement has improved," 
"attendance. . .attitude. . .has improved. .. school has come 
alive. "•T 

Rex Jennings, president of the Chamber of Commerce, 
described the desegregation experience of his son, a high 
school student: 



a? 



.. .academically. . .the process has had no 
[negative] influence. .. integration of that school 
has had a very meaningful influence upon his 
having a better understanding of human nature and 
gaining a new appreciation for people of minority 
races. . . . *« 

Radio executive Gene Amole said the experience for his 
daughter had been "an enrichment. . .a very positive aspect" 
of desegregation.*' Another parent, Richard Nuechterlein, 
said it was a "positive experience for our family and for 
the neighborhood . " 7 o 

Ted Conover, a high school senior, said that tension 

had existed the first few weeks after desegregation, but "in 

time everybody adjusted and settled down." He added: 

It's been a positive experience for me and. ..for 
the people who stuck it out and really tried to 
make something of the school.... Integration puts 
^ lot of people through a lot of personal, family, 
and individual changes, but with the proper 
preparation and positive attitude. . .it can be a 
very worthwhile experience."'* 

Witnesses representing the Hispanic community testified 

that despite some real gains toward a desegregated system, 

they remained concerned about ethnic discrimination, 

cultural isolation, the failure to provide quality education 

for language-minority groups, and the lack of affirmative 

action for Hispanos. Chancellor Mitchell, chairman of the 

Community Education Council, agreed: 

...the question of how they have been dealt with 
and how they have fared with this decree and how 



HB 



they should expect to be treated by the school 
district and by the citizens of this community 
[is] one... of the loose ends that has never really 
been tied up. ^2 

The issue of bilingual-bicultural education received 
considerable attention at the hearing as it had in the Keyes 
litigation. Several witnesses testified that school 
officials have shovm no enthusiasm for bilingual-bicultural 
programs although Hispanic students are the largest minority 
group in Denver's schools. 

A school board member criticized those who refer to 
bilingual-bicultural education as a "problem" saying, "28 
percent of our children are Hispano and have Hispano 
heritage. . .[this] should not be a problem but an advantage 
and something of which we should be taking advantage 
constantly in this school system. "^ 3 

School officials contended that, in response to the 
demands from the Hispanic community, they have instituted 
various programs which meet the language and cultural needs 
of the children, and an expanded program is being developed 
for 10 more schools pursuant to Colorado's Bilingual and 
Bicultural Education Act of 1975. "'^ Hispanic community 
leaders and educational experts, however, remain extremely 
critical of the system's "ineffective, fumbling, weak, and 
inadequate effort."^* The records of the Community Education 



49 



Council's bilingual-bicultural committee show "a steady 
stream of complaints about the lack of a viable program"''* 
and positive suggestions offered by the council have not 
been put into effect. 

More aggressive recruitment of Hispano teachers and 
real affirmative action at the classroom as well as the 
administrative level were mentioned repeatedly as major 
needs of Hispano students. According to Jim Esquibel, 
former president of the Congress of Hispano Educators, the 
Denver school system has failed for years to respond to this 
need. '^ 

Minorities in Denver appear to look to the future with 

cautious optimism. They agree that constant vigilance and 

monitoring of the system are necessary, as Lt. Gov. George 

L. Brown suggested: 

I don't trust the system to do the things that are 
right... if they are not examined thoroughly and 
continually. . .they will easily fall back and adopt 
the practices and procedures of that portion of 
our community which doesn't believe in. . .equality 
of opportxmity. . . ■'• 

Many individuals agree, too, that continued progress 

rests, as it has throughout the desegregation process, with 

continued citizen involvement in the total educational 

process. Jean Emery, chairperson of the monitoring 

committee of the Community Education Council, said, "to have 



50 



the commtmity in the schools is hopefully a never-ending 

process."^' 

Findings 

It is apparent from a summary of the preceding 
testimony that: 

1. Leadership provided by a citizens' advisory 
council, established and supported by the court, and 
coordinated activity by a well-integrated coalition of 
community organizations helped school desegregation to 
proceed in a generally smooth and orderly fashion. Other 
groups which contributed to the successful implementation of 
desegregation include the religious community, the media, 
and principals at a number of schools. 

2. Opposition to desegregation by the school 
superintendent and the school board slowed the desegregation 
process. The administration offered no new ideas or 
programs to achieve desegregation and in most instances 
refused to cooperate with the court-appointed citizens' 
advisory council. 

3. Throughout the desegregation process the local 
media, by and large, assumed a responsible posture toward 
desegregation. It refrained from sensationalizing school 
desegregation events; presented valuable information to the 



51 



public; and reported in a fair, balanced, and responsible 
way. 

U. Although the district established bilingual- 
bicultural programs for its large Mexican American school 
population, these programs have been inadeqxjate. Advice 
from the Hispanic community and educational leaders appears 
to have been consistently ignored, few bilingual teachers 
have been hired, and adequate plans for the aggressive and 
affirmative recruitment of bilingual staff have not been 
developed. 
Hillsborough County (Tampa) , Florida 

Situated halfway down the western coast of Florida on 
Tampa Bay, Hillsborough is one of two counties comprising 
the Tampa-St. Petersburg Standard Metropolitan Statistical 
Area, the second largest SMSA in Florida. "o Processing a 
high degree of industrialization compared to the rest of the 
State, Hillsborough County has rural and agricultural as 
well as urban and suburban characteristics. At the time of 
the 1970 census, the county had a population of 490,265, 
13.6 percent of which was black and 10.1 percent of Spanish 
origin. «» By 1975 the population had grown to an estimated 
632,500 persons. 82 Tampa, the county's principal city, had 
a population of 277,748 in 1970 and an estimated 297,500 in 
1975.83 Blacks constituted 54,831 or 19.7 percent and 

52 



Spanish- language persons numbered 40,349 or 14.5 percent of 
the total in 1970.8* 

Hillsborough County has one school system whose 
boundaries are the same as those of the county, ss The 
Nation's 22d largest public school system, it has approxi- 
mately 115,000 students attending 91 elementary schools, 26 
junior highs, 11 senior highs, and 1 school for the educable 
mentally handicapped. Of these schools, 66 are within the 
city limits. Black students number 21,376 (18.1 percent) 
and Hispanic students number 5,662, constituting 4.9 percent 
of the total as of October 1975.^6 

The desegregation plan under which the Hillsborough 
County school system currently operates resulted from a suit 
filed by black parents in the U.S. District Court for the 
Middle District of Florida on December 12, 1958.*^ 
Specifically, the complaint alleged that 72 schools were 
limited to whites only and 18 schools were limited to blacks 
who were often required to travel up to 10 miles one way 
past closer white schools to attend a black school. ■• When 
the suit finally came to trial in 1961, the court found for 
the plaintiffs and accepted a freedom-of -choice 
desegregation plan submitted by the Hillsborough School 
Board. This plan also contained a provision for year-by- 



53 



year dissolution of separate attendance areas beginning with 
the first grade in the 1963-6a school year.«« 

In 1968 plaintiffs returned to court contending that 
the plan had failed to desegregate the schools. There 
ensued a series of court orders and proposed plans, con- 
cluding with a plan adopted in August 1969 that provided, 
among other things, for assignment of students in every 
school on the basis of geographic attendance areas beginning 
in the 1969-70 school year.'o 

Finding the plan deficient, the Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit ordered (1) utilization of a variety of 
desegregation techniques, including strict neighborhood 
assignment, pairing, and redrawing school zone lines; •* and 
(2) retention of jurisdiction by the district court until it 
was clear that State-imposed segregation had been completely 
eradicated. Reopening the case by its own motion in May 
1971 following the Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg decision, 
the court ordered the school board to submit a plan tailored 
to specific terms. The resulting plan, which the court 
accepted and which remains in effect today, provided for 
desegregation of most of the county's 89 elementary schools 
by clustering, with the previously black schools becoming 
sixth grade centers. The 23 junior highs and 3 junior- 
senior high schools were desegregated by clustering and 

5(1 



satellite zoning. The white senior high schools retained 
their 10-12 grade structure and the black senior high 
schools were converted to different grade levels. '2 

In 1972 and again in 1973, Commission staff visited 
Hillsborough County to observe and report on the 
desegregation process. '^ in March 1976 the Commission 
returned to Hillsborough to conduct a 3-day hearing at which 
witnesses testified about the school desegregation 
process. «♦ 

There was a consensus among witnesses that the 

comprehensive desegregation plan developed pursuant to the 

court order of May 11, 1971, was implemented smoothly. 

Hearing witnesses collectively cited niomerous reasons for 

this, but two factors stood above all others. One was the 

broad range of community involvement sought by the school 

system in developing the plan. A 150-member Citizens 

Desegregation Committee was organized, consisting of a 

complete cross-section of people from all walks of life 

representing all geographical areas and ethnic, racial, and 

religious backgrounds .' s Explaining the reasoning behind 

this policy of broad inclusion, school administrator E.L. 

Bing stated: 

It appeared to us that if we in Hillsborough 
County were to come up with a plan that was going 
to really be effective and accepted by the public 

55 



and had assurances of some built-in chance of 
success in terms of implementation, then we really 
needed to put the problem back where the problem 
really existed, and that is with the people 
because the schools belong to the people. »• 

The second paramount factor was the positive role 
played by various leadership elements within the school 
system and in the community at large. 

The Hillsborough County School Board set the tone for 
peaceful implementation by accepting the recommendations of 
the district court judge that the plan provide for an 
approximate 80-20, white-black ratio throughout the system. 
Although the school board could have appealed the subsequent 
court order, it chose not to do so but instead declared 
forcefully its unanimous position that the board would 
comply with the law. School Superintendent Raymond Shelton 
followed, taking a public position that his personal views 
or those of anyone else were unimportant. The issues, he 
said, were the education of children and obedience to the 
law. 

Other individuals of the Tampa-Hill sborough community 
followed this lead. Several members of the Tampa Chamber of 
Commerce served on the School Desegregation Committee. One 
businessman testified that the maintenance of a good school 
system was of special importance to the community's 
commercial interests. The Tampa Chamber of Commerce, 

56 



therefore, endorsed desegregation, strongly supported the 

school desegregation plans of the School Desegregation 

Conunittee, and was instrumental in selling and promoting the 

final plan to the community. In so doing, the chamber 

sought to neutralize the sensitive issue of busing and to 

avoid school disruptions that plagued some cities 

experiencing school desegregation. 

By all accounts, the media newspapers and 

television also acted responsibly in reporting on 

desegregation of the county's schools. According to Joseph 

Mannion, director of news for WFLA-TV, the television 

station maintained a policy of providing information about 

the plan and its implementation in a noninflammatory manner. 

Paul Hogan, managing editor of the Tampa Tribune, said that 

the paper counseled the local community to accept the 

Federal court ruling and the inevitability of school 

desegregation and busing as a means toward this end. The 

newspaper editorialized: 

Parents, white and black, can help in the 
adjustment by not planting prejudice or fears in 
the minds of their children. Youngsters, left to 
themselves, generally have no problem in getting 
along together. «'' 

Religious leaders and law enforcement administrators 

played lesser although essentially positive roles in the 

county's desegregation crisis. Acting independently of one 

57 



another, most clerics urged their congregations to accept 

desegregation as in keeping with the Judeo-Christian tenet 

of the equality of people before God. Regarding collective 

action, however, one minister testified that religious 

organizations and associations had a role to play at the 

time of desegregation, but they did not become involved. 

Representatives of the county and the city police 

departments made contingency plans with school officials in 

preparation for implementation of the plan. Both police 

groups stressed the importance of opening and maintaining 

lines of communication with students and avoiding a show of 

force in resolving confrontations. Illustrating this point. 

Sheriff Malcolm Beard described a minor fracas at Plant High 

School at the time of plan implementation: 

I found that we were very acceptable to the kids. 
As a matter of fact, one young man. .. came off the 
bus. He was obviously a leader. He was a black 
kid. He was a football player. And he walked up 
to me and put his arm around me and I put my arm 
around him and he told me to go back to Tampa, 
that they were not going to have any trouble that 
day. So that is what I did and we didn't have any 
trouble. ^b 

Elected county and city government officials testified 

that they avoided involvement in the desegregation 

controversy in the belief that this was a matter for the 

school board alone to address. 



58 



High school students testified that relations among 

Latin, black, and white students have improved generally 

since desegregation. A white youth stated: 

On the whole, when I was young the blacks tended 
to be looked down upon, especially in elementary 
school. In high school it seems to be different. 
There seems to be more cohesiveness among the 
young. •« 

A Latin youth indicated that most students now judge 

others by personality rather than by racial background: 

I remember in one case there was one white who 
wasn't really liked by his other white friends, 
but they. ..said, "Even though we don't like this 
guy, if he ever got in a fight with a black we 
would have to back him up." And I don't see this 
now. 100 

On the whole, junior and senior high school students 
seemed to feel that desegregation was working well. Most 
students either liked or did not mind the busing involved, 
and seemed to enjoy their schools. A black student leader 
indicated that the contributions of minority groups should 
be incorporated into the social studies curriculum. 

By virtually any standard that might be applied, the 
Hillsborough County school desegregation plan of 1971 was 
implemented successfully. Picketing and boycotts were 
nonexistent, and the student disruptions that occurred were 
minor. Few v^ites chose to leave their assigned schools, 
perhaps due to the countywide nature of the plan, and the 



59 



curricular improvements underway throughout the system prior 
to plan implementation. Of those who left, however, most 
reportedly have returned. School officials also testified 
that achievement test scores have improved, that greater 
numbers of minority students are seeking higher education 
and other kinds of postsecondary study, and that both black 
and white students have benefitted from interracial 
experiences. 

There is evidence, however, that some problems persist 
in the county schools. One of these concerns voluntary 
participation of minorities in school affairs. School 
officials testified that despite the provision of buses for 
special activities, minority students, except athletes, 
generally have not participated in extracurricular 
activities. Similarly, minority parents reportedly have 
been reluctant to join PTAs and to participate in school 
programs. On the other hand, minority witnesses stated that 
while the black community continues to support 
desegregation, many are concerned about such problems as the 
disproportionate numbers of black students disciplined, and 
instances of racial and ethnic insensitivity and prejudice 
demonstrated by some white teachers. 

School officials acknowledged that proportionately 
greater numbers of black students have been suspended, but 

60 



they maintained that discipline has been administered 
fairly. One administrator suggested that the suspension 
rate for black students in Hillsborough County schools is 
roughly equivalent to the national suspension rate for black 
students. Upon request of the local NAACP chapter, however, 
the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
investigated the Hillsborough school system and found 
possible discrimination in disciplinary practices. One 
minority leader suggested that mandatory human relations 
training for all teachers could be one approach to solving 
the problems of black student suspensions and racial 
insensitivity displayed by some white teachers toward black 
students. School officials have rejected this approach, and 
although the absolute number of students suspended has been 
decreasing in recent years, suspensions of black students 
remain proportionately greater. 

Witnesses from the minority community disapproved of 
the large percentage of black students transported for 
desegregation purposes and the related conversion of two 
black high schools to junior high schools. Generally, white 
students are bused 2 of their 12 school years in order to 
carry out the provisions of the plan; black students are 
bused 10 of their 12 years. Minority representatives 
testified that had Blake and Middleton been retained as high 

61 



schools, the disproportionate transportation would have been 
less severe and those institutions would continue as sources 
of pride to the black community. School officials said that 
it had been their intention to retain both facilities as 
senior high schools. That course of action, however, was 
abandoned when it became clear that a satisfactory 
geographic zone with a stable enrollment probably could not 
be maintained. One school official indicated that whites' 
"fears" of sending "their kids to a school that was 
inherently inferior" also were a factor in the decision to 
convert those schools. lo* They also indicated that it was 
financially and logistically more feasible to convert the 
two black high schools and to disperse the minority 
population throughout the system than to adopt any other 
approach. 102 

The Hillsborough County school system has just begun to 
implement a bilingual-bicultural education program for its 
substantial number of students from non-English-speaking 
backgrounds. In March 1976 the school system completed a 
survey identifying 7,08^ students from home environments in 
which English is not the dominant language. Although 28 
different language groups were identified, the vast majority 
of these students are Spanish speaking. A second survey 
assessing the English language proficiency of these students 

62 



is scheduled for completion by August 1976. Although there 
is a philosophical disagreement between the school 
administration and bilingual education program staff 
regarding the appropriate method for instructing non- 
English-speaking children, assistant superintendent Frank 
Farmer stated, "By 1976-77, we will have a complete 
bilingual program meeting the exact interpretation of the 
law. "103 

The Hillsborough County school system is not unlike 

numerous others across the Nation that have implemented 

desegregation plans. School officials, teachers, parents, 

students, and the community have made the adjustment quietly 

and without rancor. So smooth was their transition that 

they escaped the probing eyes of the national media. Like 

other school districts, however, Hillsborough has found that 

some problems remain to be resolved. A spokesperson for the 

school system alluded to the unfinished business as he 

differentiated between desegregation and integration: 

You know desegregation is a physical process of 
moving people and things. But integration is a 
long process of establishing attitudinal 
change.... In Hillsborough County we like to feel 
we are moving towards integration now. That is 
the point of having each youngster feel that this 
is his school and he is not imposing himself on 
anyone; he is welcome; he takes pride in the 
school; he knows when he leaves every morning that 
he's going to be treated fairly and impartially; 
he's going to get a chance to participate in all 



63 



the activities. This is the process we are 
working on in this district now. lo* 

Findings 

The testimony as sumarized above reveals the following 

findings: 

1 . Once final judicial action was taken and the 
inevitability of desegregation became apparent, numerous 
leadership elements including school officials, business 
persons, the clergy, and law enforcement officials took 
forthright positions in Hillsborough in favor of obedience 
to the law and thus paved the way for peaceful 
desegregation. 

2. The decision of the Hillsborough County school 
system to involve a broad cross-section of citizenry in the 
planning process facilitated the smooth implementation of 
desegregation in the Hillsborough-Tampa community. 

3. Desegregation has had positive effects on the 
quality of education. Achievement test scores have improved 
and greater numbers of minority students are seeking higher 
education. 

«». The minority communities of Hillsborough, while 
still supporting desegregation, are concerned that: 

(a) black students are transported disproportionately, 

(b) black students are suspended disproportionately. 



eu 



(c) the needs of language-minority students are not 
being adequately addressed, and 

(d) some teachers display racial insensitivity and 
bias. 

5. Students have responded positively to 
desegregation. Relations among black, white, and Hispanic 
students have improved. Students are more highly motivated 
and the number of minority students seeking higher education 
has increased. 

6. The news media of Hillsborough provided excellent 
coverage of the deliberations of the Citizens Desegregation 
Committee and kept the community informed as to all aspects 
of the desegregation plan. Most of the local media endorsed 
peaceful implementation of the plan and avoided 
sensationalism in reporting it. 

Jefferson county (Louisville) , Kentucky 

Louisville and Jefferson County form a border community 
in a border State. The county covers 375 square miles and 
encompasses 76 cities, the largest of which is Louisville. 
Established in 1780 as a trading post, Louisville rests on 
the south bank of the busy Ohio River which separates it 
from the State of Indiana. 

The metropolitan area has long been a major commercial 
and business center, producing everything from household 

65 



appliances and rubber products to bourbon whiskey and 
baseball bats. Although it is also a financial and 
insurance center, Louisville's dependence on industry has 
made it a working person's town. General Electric Appliance 
Division is the largest single employer (20,000) followed by 
the Jeffboat Co. (16,000) and Ford Motor Co. (7,5'»a).»05 m 
1971, 8«» unions were represented in the area by 219 
locals. »o* More than 80 percent of the employees in 
manufacturing industries are organized. » ©^ 

The county's population in 1975 was estimated at 
733,220, of whom 327,500 reside in Louisville. » o« As is the 
case in many metropolitan areas, the vast majority of the 
area's 13.7 percent black population lives in the city, 
which is 23.8 percent black. lo* The Jefferson County public 
school system serves the entire metropolitan area and 
includes 121,763 students; 28,510, or 23. U percent, are 
black. 110 

Prior to 1975, there were two school systems, one 
serving the city of Louisville, the other serving the 
surrounding county. Because the city's corporate limits 
extended beyond the Louisville school district lines, some 
10,000 students who lived outside the school district but 
within the city limits, were in fact included in the 
Jefferson County school district, m but were permitted the 

66 



choice of attending city schools, tuition paid by the 
county. * * 2 

The two systems merged in April 1975 when the 
Louisville system, as provided for by Kentucky law, * * 3 voted 
itself out of existence and was subsumed by the Jefferson 
County school system. Although merger had been discussed 
for 20 years, it was ultimately necessitated by the failing 
financial condition of the city schools. *»♦ 

The Jefferson County Board of Education now has 13 
members. That number will fluctuate until 1978 when it will 
stabilize at 7 members elected from newly drawn 
districts. 115 There is considerable duplication of positions 
within the merged school administration. There are 35 
positions titled "superintendent." The head of the new 
system is the former county superintendent, and the former 
city superintendent became one of three deputy 
superintendents (the other two are former county 
administrators) . Administrative problems involved in 
merging the two different school systems are still being 
resolved. Sometimes described as educationally "progressive 
and urban oriented," the Louisville school system prior to 
merger had 45,000 students, 54 percent of whom were 
black. 11* Reflecting its not too distant rural past, 
Jefferson County's educational approach was described as 

67 



"traditional."* 1^ The county had a relatively wealthy school 
system as a result of population growth from an influx of 
new businesses and families moving from the city. In 1950 
county school enrollment was 16,000,*i8 but at the time of 
merger the figure had soared to 90,000 students of whom only 
U percent were black. *»' 

The two systems had one thing in common — both were 
unconstitutionally segregated, despite the fact that in 1956 
both had formally abolished the dual school system that had 
been legally sanctioned in Kentucky. *2o Black students in 
Jefferson County had been assigned to a few majority-black 
schools that were underutilized, while nearby majority-white 
schools were operating with enrollments greater than 
capacity. 121 portable classrooms and double shifts were used 
to accommodate the burgeoning numbers of white students. In 
Louisville a voluntary open enrollment policy operated to 
promote racial separateness ; students simply trans fered to 
schools where they would constitute the racial majority. 
More than one- third of the Louisville schools in 1973 were 
90-100 percent black and another one-third were 90-100 
percent white. » 22 

Four months after merger, on July 17, 1975, the 
Jefferson County Board of Education was ordered to implement 
a desegregation plan by September 4, 1975. »23 This order 

68 



climaxed 4 years of litigation initiated in 1971 when suit 
was filed against the Jefferson County Board of 
Education. »24 in 1972 a suit was filed against both the city 
and county boards of education seeking expansion of the 
Louisville district to include all areas within the city 
limits. »2s Subsequently, the NAACP intervened and sought 
desegregation and merger. From then on desegregation and 
merger became inseparable issues. 

The case against both school boards was dismissed by 
the Federal district court, but in December 197 3 the Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. *26 with 
respect to merger, the circuit court held that upon a 
finding of unlawful segregation in neighboring school 
systems and a determination that only by means of a 
desegregation plan encompassing both school systems can the 
schools be desegregated, a district court has the power to 
devise a remedy which crosses school district lines. The 
circuit court noted that "school district lines have been 
disregarded in the past in conforming to State- enforced 
segregation."* 2 7 

Although a desegregation plan that crossed city-county 
boundary lines was approved by the district court, merger 
and desegregation came to a halt after the Supreme Court's 
decision reversing the sixth circuit's order requiring 

69 



interdistrict desegregation between Detroit and its suburbs 
in Milliken v. Bradley. *g» In December 197U, however, after 
reviewing the Louisville-Jefferson County case in light of 
the Milliken decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 
reinstated its previous decision, ruling that the county is 
the basic educational unit of the State in Kentucky and the 
State law provides for merger. 129 petitions for review to 
the Supreme Court to reverse this decision were denied in 
April 1975.130 By this time merger was in process pursuant 
to State law. 

The Louisville desegregation plan^^i stipulates that 
black student enrollment in elementary schools be no less 
than 12 percent and no more than 40 percent. At the junior 
and senior high levels, black enrollment is to range between 
12.5 percent and 35 percent. 

The primary means for implementing the plan is 
clustering schools that were previously predominantly white 
or black and transporting students within each cluster. 
Unlike most desegregation plans, which transport students 
according to geographic determinations, the Louisville plan 
determines which students are to be transported by the first 
letter of their last name. The plan calls for 8U percent of 
white students to be transported for 2 of their 12 school 
years and 16 percent to be transported for 1 year. In 

70 



marked contrast, 66 percent of black students are to be 
transported for 8 years and 33 percent for 9 years. The 
plan also calls for reassignment of administrators and 
supportive staff, teachers , and classified personnel to 
reflect the systemwide racial composition of the staff. 

The court order of July 1975 by no means marked the end 
of the struggle to desegregate the schools. The following 
August the merged school board sought a stay of 
implementation. Although the stay was denied, the school 
board appealed the plan and the case was argued before the 
circuit court in June 1976, »32 The county's chief executive 
officer, county Judge Todd Hollenbach, intervened at the 
district court level and joined in the appeal, arguing 
against the use of busing. His alternative plan was 
rejected by the district court after testimony that the plan 
would not eliminate the remaining vestiges of State- imposed 
segregation. » " 

Since the original court order to desegregate in July 
1975, the school board has twice been permitted to extend 
the exemption of first graders from transportation. In 
December 1975 the court agreed to an interim exemption of 
first graders from the plan throughout the remainder of the 
school year,»3* and in March 1976 the school board proposed 
and the court approved extending the exemption through the 

71 



1976-77 school year, but ordered that first graders be 
transported as all other grades after that time.»3s 

In March 1976 Commission staff went to Louisville to 
study the process of school desegregation. After 3 months 
of investigation, the Commission held a 3-day hearing June 
14, 15, 16 in Louisville during which 117 witnesses were 
called to testify. 

One of the most important facts to emerge from hearing 

testimony was that opposition to school desegregation 

existed only to a limited degree among the students. 

Student testimony highlighted the fact that the protests and 

occasional acts of violence staged by some groups had made 

it difficult for the students to settle down and accept the 

first year of desegregation in stride: 

The entire community was just sort of negative on 
the school system and it just drifted down and 
affected everyone . » ^e 

We had a lot of trouble at the beginning of the 
school [year] because the parents would come out 
and protest in front of the school. *3 7 

The worst thing that happened was our first 
football game was cancelled. . .because of 
demonstrations at Southern and Durrett. The only 
thing wrong at Thomas Jefferson was the things 
that happened around us.... Other than that our 
school year went really good.* 3" 

A student testified that significant changes occurred 

within the schools when community protests abated: 



72 



I think after a lot of the protesting died down, 
[and] a lot of the media treatment of "the schools 
are being desegregated this year"... some of the 
antagonism just went away.... When it was possible 
for the students to start forgetting that they 
were being bused... they would forget about it.... I 
don't think there was hostility towards the end of 
the year. *" 

Although organizations were established as early as 
1971 to prepare the community for desegregation, the lack of 
official channels for input from these groups resulted in 
their having little effect on the implementation process. 
Numerous witnesses testified that traditional community 
leaders — elected county and city officials, the clergy, 
business, organized labor, higher education — did little to 
urge the community to adhere to the court order or to 
promote acceptance of desegregation. 

Suzie Post, women's coordinator for the Louisville and 
Jefferson County Human Relations Commission, testified that 
desegregation was ordered immediately prior to a general 
election and "every politician immediately jumped on an 
antibusing bandwagon....! don't think there is any question 
in many of our minds that with some leadership from our 
elected officials, we could have gotten through this 
situation in a much more constructive, healthy way."i*o 

The executive director of the Kentucky Commission on 
Human Rights, Galen Martin, testified that some individuals 



73 



in leadership capacities thought that a neutral posture 
would be sufficient to ensure peaceful implementation. He 
said that many supported law and order but did "nothing in 
support of desegregation and ended up contributing to the 
confusion. »»i*i 

Lois Cronholm, who chairs the Louisville-Jefferson 
County Human Relations Commission, said that she had been 
"markedly unsuccessful" in getting public leaders to express 
a commitment to the court order. »*2 Most of them "did not 
really want to face the fact that it was going to happen," 
she said.»*3 County Judge Hollenbach testified that although 
he and Louisville Mayor Harvey Sloane had appointed a 
Community Consensus Committee to prepare the community for 
desegregation, county funds provided to the committee in 
197U were not reallocated the year schools were 
desegregated.* ♦♦ He explained that time constraints had made 
it difficult for him and Mayor Sloane to continue meeting 
with the committee. **s 

Both the county judge and the mayor have proposed 
alternatives to the court order, and one witness said he 
thought this served to keep people from accepting the court 
order. !♦* Judge Hollenbach* s alternative desegregation plan 
is essentially a variation of voluntary open enrollment, i*'' 
He said he believes that "the remedy applied by the Federal 

7U 



court was far excessive of what it should have been."i*8 in 
testimony provided the U.S. Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary October 29, 1975, Mayor Sloane advocated "an 
alternative judicial approach for school desegregation. "**9 
During the Commission's hearing in Louisville, he explained 
that a "National Commission on Quality Education would 
relieve the responsibility from the judge in the district 
courts of making determinations as to desegregation. "* so 

Some witnesses said that the absence of leadership in 
support of the court order fueled the determination of those 
individuals bent on disruption. Lyman Johnson, president of 
the Louisville chapter of the NAACP stated: "When the mayor 
and the Governor and the county judge abdicated leadership 
responsibilities. . .that gives the violent prone elements in 
our community a chance to run wild."*^* 

A major outbreak of violence occurred on the second day 
of school in the southwestern section of the county, in the 
vicinity of Valley High School. Injuries were suffered by 
91 county policemen and State troopers, and county and State 
police officials estimated that the violence cost their 
departments over $1 million. *52 Hearing testimony leaves 
many unanswered questions as to why the violence was not 
contained. 



75 



The Louisville chief of police. Col. John Nevin, 
testified that on September 5, 250 to 300 officers trained 
in riot control were mobilized and waiting to assist covrnty 
police if needed.* 53 According to Police Chief Nevin, when 
the county police were unable to control demonstrations and 
requested city support. Judge Hollenbach refused to call for 
assistance from the city police. is* Judge Hollenbach 
explained that he believed "the city needed [their police] 
resources to assure and reserve the peace in the city."*" 

Witnesses criticized the Chamber of Commerce for not 
taking a firm stand in support of peaceful desegregation, 
although the chamber did circulate a "Community Pledge" 
calling for peaceful desegregation which was published in 
the morning and evening papers August 1, 3, and September 
3.156 However, some businesses refused to sign as an 
expression of opposition to the court order. i*^ Others 
refused to sign or withdrew their signatures in the face of 
adverse public reaction. Robinson Brown, president of the 
Chamber of Commerce, explained that the pledge was 
misunderstood because "antibusing groups. . .accused people of 
being probusing if they were not antibusing."**" 

There were many serious incidents of intimidation 
directed at businesses that refused to display antibusing 
posters. An official of a company that operates local 

76 



variety stores stated that his refusal to place antibusing 
posters in his store windows led to attempts to burn down 
one of the stores. As a consequence, he said, the company 
decided to display antibusing signs,* 59 and requested 
Chamber of Commerce support in the face of a proposed 
antibusing boycott of businesses. The chamber took no 
action. "This was a time when [the Chamber] should have 
stood up for the business people, and they did not," he 
said. 160 

A manager of one of the variety stores, who described 
himself as against busing because he believes it 
impractical, said that he was harrassed after he refused to 
join the Ku Klux Klan and to display antibusing signs. He 
noted that persons who normally came into the store stopped 
coming, and others came specifically to harrass his sales 
people. Store windows were broken, he said, one the result 
of a shotgun blast. **» 

The failure of the business community to unite in 
support of peaceful desegregation was matched by the labor 
unions, united in their opposition to the desegregation 
plan. The management of General Electric refused to sign 
the community pledge calling for peaceful desegregation, **2 
and approximately 95 percent of GE's employees were absent 
from work on September 4 and 5 in protest against the 

77 



desegregation plan.i*' Despite the fact that the national 
policy of the American Federation of Labor, the Congress of 
Industrial Organizations, and the United Auto Workers was 
supportive of busing, members of local chapters formed an 
organization called United Labor Against Busing and 
participated in antibusing demonstrations, »*♦ 

Some witnesses said the media treatment of 
desegregation was fair and informative, *•» and others were 
critical. One witness said he believes that the media in 
Louisville "is better than average as compared with many 
other cities, "!•• and described the use of phrases such as 
"court ordered forced busing across racial lines to achieve 
balance" as unfortunate because they are misleading. *«7 
Another witness, citing an example of inflamatory media 
treatment, said that when the Supreme Court decided not to 
review the Boston desegregation case, a local television 
news program chose to use a picture of a school bus with the 
slogan, "Supreme Court Ignores Boston."**" 

Some witnesses cautioned that unless community 
organizations and elected officials take an affirmative 
stand in support of desegregation, the protests and 
disruptions that marred the opening of school in 1975 could 
be repeated in 1976. **» 



78 



The absence of strong leadership among elected 
officials and community groups also prevailed in the 
Jefferson County Public School System. A school board 
member testified that he felt strongly that the board should 
have gone on record in support of "carrying out the judge's 
order. ..[ but ] there was no way this could have passed this 
board. "i^o The school board was divided not only on the 
issue of desegregation but also on philosophies of 
education, apparently as a result of dissimilar experiences 
in the former city and county systems. Board divisiveness 
was communicated to the staff and consequently was 
destructive in terms of administrative functioning.*^* 

Joel Henning, a former school assistant superintendent 
who helped design the desegregation plan, identified four 
problem areas that he said threaten the integrity of the 
plan: a disproportionate number of black students are being 
suspended; hardship transfers, which allow students to be 
exempted from reassignment, have been granted to a greater 
extent to white students and thus have the effect of 
maintaining the former racial identity of the schools; 
enrollment in the Alternative School for students with 
serious disciplinary problems is disproportionately black, 
while enrollment in Youth Development Programs for students 
with less serious problems is disproportionately white; and 

79 



the exemption of first graders from transportation changed 
the racial makeup of the schools specified by the court 
order. »7 2 

A black community leader said that the disciplinary 
code results in disproportionate numbers of black students 
being suspended and is an institutionalized means for 
pushing black students out of school, i'' 3 She suggested that 
the school board find alternatives to suspending 
students. »74 

Several black community witnesses and Deputy 
Superintendent Milburn Maupin, the former Louisville school 
superintendent, expressed anger that a grant to study the 
suspension problem had been refused by the school 
administration. 175 Although another deputy superintendent 
explained that the grant was turned down because it was too 
heavily research oriented, * 7* Mr. Maupin said he believed 
that "we ought to be jumping at any study on suspensions 
because little is known on how to solve the problem. "^^^ 

A white student gave her views on student suspensions: 

The blacks are better known because they are 
caught so often. The whites aren't, because the 
whites seem to be able to get out of it. They 
always make up excuses. It is easier for a white 
to get out of class than a black because. ..[ the 
teachers ] think [ black students ] are lying to 
them, whereas they will believe [a white student] 
sooner.* 78 



80 



There are indications that some schools are beginning 
to face the suspension problem. Deputy Superintendent 
Maupin testified that a school principal had told him that: 
"I am convinced that whatever the reason I might have had, 
my posture on suspensions is just not effective, and I am 
changing that. » ^9 

Students in Louisville appear to be adjusting well to 

desegregation, and many student witnesses testified that 

desegregation is a positive experience: 

If I hadn't gone to Thomas Jefferson, I would 
really be a narrow-minded person, because before I 
went there I went to a private all-white school, 
and I had no idea what other people were like; I 
didn't want to associate with anybody except 
whites. But at Thomas Jefferson, I got to where 
color didn't matter to me.»80 

Testimony also indicates that students often took the 

initiative to help other students adjust to their new 

school. One student said: 

We met the buses the first two or three days... and 
accompanied students to the classrooms and we 
introduced them to the teacher and other people 
around the schools... so they would feel more at 
home . * « 1 

The schools had different ways of easing tensions that 

resulted from community controversy about desegregation. 

The county school administration developed a human relations 

program to facilitate the desegregation process in the 

schools and in the community by promoting interaction among 



81 



students and parents. The sponsor at Shawnee High School 
explained that the program was designed "to prepare our 
students to meet their anxieties. .. .So we began setting up 
discussion groups, small groups of students, and they began 
discussing any problems in the school.* 82 

A student testified to the effectiveness of the 
program: "I think it is good because people got to express 
their feelings publicly instead of keeping everything locked 
up inside of them."*^^ 

In response to student and teacher concerns, one school 
provided a suggestion box to gather ideas for 
recommendations to the human relations committee. The same 
school developed a rumor control system to keep students 
informed of facts concerning any school incident. i84 

Despite the difficulty with which desegregation was 

implemented in the Jefferson County Public Schools and 

notwithstanding the problems that remain, education in the 

schools has carried on. A teacher characterized the school 

year in the following manner: 

It has been a different year. It has not been a 
good year, it has not been a bad year. We 
consider ourselves at Smyrna very fortunate that 
things have gone as well as they have. We had a 
fairly good year. **5 

Community disruptions that caused tensions and anxiety 

among students and teachers in the first quarter of the 

82 



1975-76 school year have ceased. There appears to be a 

gradual realization that school desegregation is there to 

stay. A white parent explained: 

At the beginning I was a little bit disappointed 
that [my son] was to be bused from his home 
school. But we decided, my husband and I, that if 
this was to be his life, then we would go right 
along with him. And he seemed to be happy, and he 
went to Central and he began to love Central. He 
said there was something there that he had not 
found any place else.»«« 

Referring to the fact that black children are bused to 

a greater extent than white children, a black parent 

explained his rationale for accepting the court order: 

Black people have been unhappy so long, but we are 
used to it. The black community understood the 
dilemma of busing, how inconvenient it was and is 
for young children to be on the corner. ..to catch 
a bus... but we felt that it was worth the 
sacrifice. ..if that young child doesn't get on the 
bus to get an education, he may be on that corner 
the rest of his life.is^ 

Findings 

The above summary of testimony from the Louisville 
hearing contains the following findings: 

1. Elected covmty officials abdicated their 
responsibility to maintain law and order and to take an 
affirmative stand in support of the desegregation order, and 
thus perpetuated the belief of opponents to desegregation 
that demonstrated opposition would yield results. The failure 
of County Judge Hollenbach to request city police assistance in th« 

83 



face of disruptions on September 5, 1975, in the 
southwestern section of the county resulted in extensive 
property damage and bodily injuries. 

2. Although the Chamber of Commerce made some initial 
attempts to unify the business community in support of 
peaceful desegregation, it yielded to intimidation from 
dissident elements in the community. As a result, many 
businesses that would not have supported antibusing forces 
publicly did so in order to protect themselves and their 
property. 

3. In spite of community disruption, the schools 
desegregated peacefully and with minimal difficulty. Well 
developed human relations programs in individual schools 
facilitated the desegregation process. 

4. Students generally responded positively to 
desegregation. Any tension and anxiety that existed was 
generated by community controversy and opposition. When 
community opposition abated after the first quarter of the 
school year, students settled down and accepted the first 
year of desegregation as a normal school year. 

5. The failure of the school board to commit itself to 
carrying out the court order has contributed to a trend 
towards re segregation. Hardship transfers granted to a 
greater degree to white students and the exemption of first 

8Q 



graders from transportation have changed the racial makeup 
of the schools from that specified by the court order. 

6. The failure of the school administration to examine 
the causes of disproportionate suspension rates for black 
students and a similar failure to evaluate assignment 
practices that place a disproportionate number of black 
students in the Alternative School have caused members of 
the black ccwununity to question the integrity of the school 
admi ni str a tion . 

FOUR STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OPEN MEETINGS 
Berkeley, California 

Berkeley was one of the first northern school districts 
to desegregate voluntarily. Located within the metropolitan 
San Francisco bay area of northern California, the city has 
a population of 1 16,716. i«« Approximately 62.5 percent of 
the city's population is Anglo, 23 percent black, 9 percent 
Asian American, and 5.5 percent of Spanish origin. *89 

In October 1975 the school district reported an 
enrollment estimated to be 45 percent white, U2 percent 
black, 7 percent Asian American, 3 percent Chicano, and 3 
percent all other. »90 The ratio of minority to majority 
students has remained stable since desegregation was 
implemented 8 years ago.*'* 



85 



Efforts to desegregate the public schools began in 1957 
when the local NAACP chapter proposed to the school board 
that a citizens' advisory committee be appointed to study 
the problems of segregation in Berkeley schools. I'z such a 
committee was appointed. It sponsored numerous meetings 
with school personnel and community representatives and 
submitted a study of educational opportunities in the 
district. » '3 

In 1963 the board voted to desegregate the junior high 

schools and to study methods for desegregating the 

elementary schools at a later date.*'* During the pxiblic 

meeting conducted by the Commission's California Advisory 

Committee in the spring of 1976, Judge Spurgeon Avakian, a 

former board member of the Berkeley school district, said of 

the board* s decision: 

First of all was the conviction of the board that 
in our modern society, equal rights and equal 
opportunities are meaningless without equal 
education. Secondly, there was the belief that 
equal education is impossible in a segregated 
setting. And finally, there was a feeling on the 
part of the board that the community of Berkeley 
was ready to take a major step in trying to reduce 
some of the inequities which were prevalent in our 
society. »95 

Board and community representatives alike said that the 

strong leadership exerted by several superintendents and the 

school board plus community participation were critical 



86 



elements in the successful inrplementation of desegregation 

plans in 1964 and 1968. 

According to Judge Avakian, opposition to desegregation 

from all strata of the community took the form of attempts 

to delay desegregation.*'* this opposition took the form of 

a recall election for members of the board who supported 

desegregation. The attempt to have these board members 

recalled failed. i97 the recall election divided the 

community. Judge Avakian viewed the outcome as positive: 

...[The outcome of the election] resulted in an 
overwhelming expression by the community of 
support for what had been done. The vote was 
something like 62 percent [against recall] to 38 
percent [for recall]. And it meant that all of 
the people who were saying that this was a 
misguided decision. . .had to accept the decision of 
the community. .. .It enabled the school system then 
to deal directly with the problems of implementing 
that decision without constantly having to deal 
with critics who were harping that this was not 
the will of the community. i'* 

Elementary schools were desegregated in the fall of 

1968, accompanied by faculty desegregation and extensive 

inservice training. The plan required all students to ride 

buses during some part of their elementary school years. 

The school administration, as well as parents, monitored the 

bus rides closely the first years and assured themselves 

that safety and convenience prevailed. "Really and truly," 

Carol Sibley, former president of the Berkeley School Board, 



87 



told the California Advisory Committee, "busing has not been 
much of an issue in Berkeley since we began it. We had very 
few complaints."* 99 

There were also few if any complaints about racial 
violence in Berkeley schools during implementation of 
desegregation. The number of racial incidents was minimal 
and very few could be traced to desegregation. 200 Alan 
Young, a school counselor, testified that behavior which 
would normally be considered merely aggressive or even 
playful if it occurred between two students of the same race 
was interpreted by overreacting white parents as a racial 
.incident if students of different races were involved. 20* 
Moreover, the California Advisory Committee heard testimony 
that since desegregation there has been minimal physical 
disruption in Berkeley's public schools. 202 

Desegregation has had positive effects on the quality 

of education. Dr. Arthur Dambacher, director of research 

and evaluation testified that achievement test scores of 

students within the different racial and ethnic groups had 

improved. 203 He also cited factors other than achievement 

scores that suggest positive results from desegregation in 

Berkeley: 

If we were to take a look at desegregation, the 
physical redistribution of youngsters...! feel 
that Berkeley gets a near perfect score. ...If 

88 



we're saying that white middle-class values and 
behavior patterns have been accepted by all of the 
minority groups. . .then we did not accomplish that 
because in my opinion it was not the objective 
that Berkeley set out to accomplish. If we 
instead mean by [integration] a greater awareness 
of the multicultural nature of our community, then 
yes, we've got a good score on that. 20* 

Although desegregation has been generally successful, 

some complaints surfaced at the open meeting. Some black 

and white parents expressed concern that disparities 

continued to exist among the achievement levels of the 

different racial and ethnic groups. 205 some minority parents 

criticized the placement of minorities in low tracks; others 

complained that white teachers had low expectations of the 

capabilities of minority students. 206 Jesse Anthony, a 

music teacher in the district who is also active in the 

black community, said some classes are segregated: 

...in music... you probably will find very few 
black students, and it's not because they are not 
terribly talented. It is because they are wiped 
out by the method of teaching, by the 
curriculum. 2 7 

Judy Bingham, a white parent, indicated that the 
school administration has not responded to student needs: 

I have never been of the belief that there was any 
reason why black students should not be given the 
sense that they must achieve, and I feel that the 
district has failed them in this regard. They 
failed the nonminority students as well because 
achievement has not been made a very big issue. 208 



89 



Berkeley has hired minorities at administrative and 
staff levels within the school system. According to Gene 
Roh, president of the board of education: "[you] have to 
have minority representation from. ..one end of the district 
to the other, relative to classroom teachers, counselors, 
support service people and administrators. . .through members 
of the board. "2 09 

Dr. Laval Wilson, superintendent of Berkeley Unified 

School District, articulated the importance of minority 

hiring: 

...the affirmative action aspect of any school 
district that is desegregated is very crucial 
because you need to have a variety of ethnic adult 
models [for] a variety of students.... Over a 
period of time we have found in our district... 
the percentages of staff members, certificated and 
classified, have proportionately increased. .. .2*0 

Although not without problems, Berkeley's experience 

with desegregation is a positive one. Judge Avakian summed 

it up: 

Berkeley. ..[ went through]. . .the kind of thing 
every community is going to have to go through 
some time. And hopefully, some communities will 
learn from the Berkeley experience that it's not 
as traumatic as the critics proclaim it to be. 2*1 

Findings 

The preceding summary of testimony provides the 

following findings: 



90 



1 . strong leadership exerted successively by several 
superintendents and the school board plus community 
participation were critical elements in the peaceful 
implementation of the desegregation plans of 196U and 1968. 

2. Achievement scores have improved for minority as 
well as majority students; however, disparities continue to 
exist among the different racial and ethnic groups. 

3. The Berkeley school system hired a number of 
minorities, particularly for important administrative 
positions; however, minorities still remain underrepresented 
in the system's school staff. 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

School desegregation in Minneapolis grew out of the 
combined activities of local citizens, the school board and 
administration, and the State board of education. The 
desegregation process began in 1967 when the Minneapolis 
Board of education, of its own volition and with the 
assistance of a committed superintendent, adopted human 
relations guidelines and established a voluntary transfer 
program permitting students to transfer within the school 
district. 21 2 jn 1970 the State board of education issued 
desegregation guidelines setting a 30 percent ceiling for 
minority student enrollment in any school. In April 1971, 
17 Minneapolis schools exceeded the ceiling and the State 

91 



board ordered the school district to develop a desegregation 

plan. 2 13 Meanwhile, the local NAACP and members of a 

biracial group of citizens called the Committee for 

Integrated Education filed suit in Federal district court, 

charging the school district with de jure segregation of 

students and faculty. 2»* On May 2U, 1972, the court found 

the Minneapolis public schools segregated as a result of de 

jure practices, some of which are summarized as follows: 

siting and expanding schools in a manner that 
increased racial concentrations between schools 

use of portable classrooms at racially 
identifiable schools 

gerrymandering attendance zones at the senior high 
school level 

operating a transfer policy that had the effect of 
increasing existing racial isolation 

operating a policy of optional attendance zones 
that facilitated resegregation 

assigning minority teachers in a manner that 
perpetuated faculty segregation 

assigning less experienced and lower paid teachers 
to schools with the highest percentage of minority 
students. 215 

Describing the deliberately discriminatory intent of 
the school board in the location, size, and construction of 
the Bethune Elementary School, the court stated, "It is hard 
to imagine how a school could be more clearly denominated a 
•black school' unless the words themselves had been chiseled 



92 



over the door. "216 The court also concluded, "These 
decisions as to size and location of schools have had the 
intended effect of increasing or at least maintaining 
segregation in the defendant's schools, "z*"' 

The court ordered the iirplementation of a desegregation 
plan that the board had already developed and approved 1 
month earlier. The plan called for new building 
construction, the institution of several educational 
alternatives in the curriculum, expansion of community 
schools, school pairing, clustered schools, initiation of 
the middle school concept, magnet-type programs in the 
central city to attract white students, and inservice human 
relations training for faculty and staff. 2 le The court set 
minority enrollment at each school at 35 percent and 
required progress reports every 6 months. 219 under the 1972 
plan, the court continues to require periodic adjustments to 
bring the enrollment of each school into compliance with the 
ordered ceiling. Currently, 7 percent of the city's 424,000 
residents and 21 percent of the district's 55,0 00 public 
school students are minorities. 220 

Testimony before the Minnesota Advisory Committee 
indicated that after the Federal court issued its 
desegregation order, a number of organizations and 
institutions have played critical roles in the peaceful 

93 



implementation of the plan. Dr. John B. Davis, Jr., 

superintendent of schools when Minneapolis desegregated in 

1972, pointed out the commitments of the State board of 

education and the legislature, which had provided more than 

$4 million for a building program during desegregation, and 

the "remarkable" support of teacher leadership. The Federal 

court. Dr. Davis noted, "kept us... on our toes in terms of 

meeting what we said we wanted to do. "221 

Leadership was vital in smoothing the path of 

desegregation. Community leaders pointed out that the 

school board and school administration, though somewhat 

reluctant to initiate desegregation, later asserted a 

positive role during the process. According to Barbara 

Schwartz of the Committee for Integrated Education: 

I think Minneapolis was very fortunate to have the 
kind of school administration and school board we 
have. While there was reluctance and I think slow 
going in the beginning, I think it's without 
question that the great burden of providing 
leadership for desegregation rested with 
them. ...The School Board was out among its 
constituents explaining [it] so 
that. .. desegregation [now] is an accepted 
notion. 222 

Curtis C. Chivers, who served as president of the local 

NAACP chapter during the early desegregation efforts, 

commented : 

I think what helped us greatly was the fact that 
we had an atmosphere of fairness in Minneapolis on 



9a 



the part of people who could have given us 
trouble, the business community and this type of 
thing. We had lines of communication being kept 
open; we had people on the school board you could 
talk with. 22 3 

According to John Warder, who served on the school 
board from ISe** to 1969, the business community not only 
supported desegregation, but also provided funds for new 
educational programs and human relations projects. *2* Dr. 
Davis noted the importance of outspoken clergymen. *2s 

As the desegregation plan was implemented, the school 
district also undertook a recruitment program to hire 
minority teachers. According to Dr. Joyce Jackson, who 
served as assistant director of personnel for the school 
district at that time, "the recruiting schedule was 
drastically changed in terms of the types of the schools 
where we went. ..We expanded to many colleges that were 
located in the South and colleges [that] had a large 
proportion of minority students. "226 

Desegregation under the court's jurisdiction has not 
been physically disruptive or violent. According to Dr. 
Robert Williams, associate superintendent for intergroup 
education, the plan was implemented, "to the surprise of 
many, without the violence and without the vandalism that is 
too often associated with school desegregation. "22 ^ "We had 
relatively few incidents of violence. While there were 

95 



lamentable incidents, I do not think that they were tied in 
any way to the effort being made to desegregate the 
schools. "22S The desegregation effort did not go unopposed, 
however, and some residents and parents of Minneapolis 
schoolchildren voiced their negative opinions about 
desegregation. In one case, the pairing of Hale and Field 
Elementary Schools, a lawsuit opposing the action was filed 
by residents. 229 The lack of violence, according to Jean 
Cummings, the parent of four Minneapolis schoolchildren, did 
not indicate a lack of opposition. The lack of violence, 
she said, resulted from a "law-abiding citizenry who did not 
care to stand up and start throwing rocks at each other. "2'o 

Many opponents of desegregation reportedly considered 
removing their children from the public schools and 
enrolling them in either private or suburban schools. Lowry 
Johnson, principal at Field School (one of the first schools 
involved in pairing) , noted that a number of residents said, 
"We're going to move, we're going to run" during the early 
stages of desegregation. But, Mr. Johnson said, "now I 
would be willing to say that those that ran are running back 
in. "231 

Gladys Anderson, principal of Nathan Hale School, 
agreed, "One of the persons who was most against the pairing 
of Hale and Field now has his child enrolled in Hale."*'* 

96 



The opposition to desegregation evident among some 
parents has not been apparent among the students directly 
affected by the action. Dr. Williams reported that tests of 
student attitudes have shown that "desegregation has been 
very positive in the eyes of the children." "So if we're 
waiting for the children to be segregationists, we'll be 
waiting a long time," he concluded; "Children are handling 
desegregation very well. "233 

Principals, teachers, administrators, and students 

reported that desegregation was taking place both in the 

classroom and in extracurricular activities. Mike 

O'Donnell, a teacher at Wilder School, said, "I definitely 

feel that there is more social interaction between all 

students and all races in our schools. "23* Richard Green, 

principal at North High School, observed: 

For some reason, either through desegregation or 
whatever, the 9th grade class which came to North 
for the first time last year saw. ..more pupils 
sharing, sitting in classrooms and lunchrooms at 
integrated lunch tables; it was much more 
prevalent among the 9th graders than it was 
amongst the 12th graders and the 11th graders. 2 's 

George Sell, a white student at Central High School, 

said, 

I feel that it has opened my mind in going to 
school with people from different backgrounds and 
that has probably more prepared me than sitting in 
an all-white school... If you put kids from a 



97 



different race together without any influence from 
the parent, they're going to get along fine.z^* 

During desegregation, student achievement levels 
reportedly rose in some schools. According to Geraldine 
Johnson, a teacher at Field Elementary School, math and 
reading scores of both majority and minority students 
rose. 237 other teachers also noted that the quality of 
educational programs in the school system had improved. 23e 

Commenting on the overall outcome of desegregation, 
Harry Davis, director (member) of the Minneapolis Board of 
Education, noted, "I think they [the students] are better 
educated, and integration and desegregation have improved 
the quality of education. 239 
Findings 

The following findings were derived from the above 
statement on the Minneapolis open meeting: 

1. Although the Board of Education had initiated a 
plan to desegregate Minneapolis schools through voluntary 
student transfer, the Federal district court found the 
school administration operated a de jure system because it 
had employed such segregatory practices as locating schools 
and gerrymandering attendance zones to increase segregation 
and assigning less experienced and lower-paid teachers to 
racially identifiable schools. 



98 



2. After the court order the school board and the 
school administration exerted strong positive leadership 
implementing the desegregation plan. 

3. Although there was strong opposition to 
desegregation among some segments of the community, an 
acceptance of the law permitted desegregation to proceed 
with only a few disruptive incidents. 

Stamford, Connecticut 

Desegregation of Stamford public schools was carried 
out voluntarily and with little difficulty from 1962 to 
1972. The board of education was committed to desegregation 
and the superintendent exerted his leadership and support. 
There was little opposition and busing was not a major 
issue. 

Located between wealthy suburban communities on the 
Long Island Sound, Stamford has a population of 108,798.2*0 
Approximately 83.2 percent of the population is white, 12.3 
percent is black, and 3.8 percent is of Spanish origin; less 
than 1.0 percent are members of other racial and ethnic 
groups. 2*1 The city encompasses 40 square miles. Its 
northern section is predominantly white and affluent, and 
the low-income and minority population is concentrated in 
the southern section. In 1975, 19,118 students were 



99 



enrolled in Stamford schools; approximately 31. U percent 
were minorities. 

Desegregation of the school system began with the 
opening of a second high school in 1961 and the 
redi strict ing of the two high schools in 1962. A common 
concern of both the community and the board of education was 
that the school system was becoming increasingly racially 
isolated. At the recommendation of a broadly-based citizen 
committee, the school board redistricted the high schools, 
changing the district line from east-west to north-south to 
ensure that students from both northern and southern 
sections of the city attended both high schools. 

Subsequent steps to desegregate Stamford's public 
schools included closing predominantly black schools and 
opening new middle and elementary schools in an inner-city 
area readily accessible to both minority and majority 
communities. Although most black parents believed that 
desegregation would improve the quality of education in the 
schools, a small coalition of blacks and Hispanics disagreed 
and developed their own proposal, which stressed quality 
education and community control. The final elementary 
school plan, which went into effect in September 1972, was 
challenged in Federal district court on the grounds that it 



100 



placed a disproportionate share of busing on the black 
community. 2*2 The court upheld the school board's plan.2^3 

School officials, parents, and community and civic 
leaders generally agree that Stamford desegregated its 
schools with relative ease.2** Although small groups of 
parents objected to specific school assignments, there was 
no significant opposition. Business and political leaders 
were not actively involved and considered desegregation a 
school board issue. Religious leaders supported 
desegregation but were not active. The media reported 
accurately on each phase of the plan. 

Elementary school principal Michael D'Agostino said 
there was no general pattern of white flight. "We didn't 
see any swelling of the private schools after desegregation. 
I think some of the parents were apprehensive, but I think 
that apprehension diminished after the schools opened in 
September. "2*5 Dr. Robert Peebles, superintendent of 
schools, said, "I think there are isolated examples of 
students who have done this, but at the same time I think 
that's countered by students that have chosen to leave 
private and parochial schools to come to our own 
schools.. . ."2** 

Desegregation within the classroom remains a critical 
issue. Ability grouping, which is used to varying degrees 

101 



at different age levels, frequently results in racial and 
ethnic isolation in academic classrooms at the middle and 
high school levels. Students, parents, and school staff 
differ in their views on ability grouping. Although parents 
support heterogeneous grouping with individualized 
instruction in the lower grades, they do not, in general, 
support heterogeneous grouping in basic skill courses in 
middle and high schools. 

Students, particularly those in lower tracks, have a 
different view. One black student, describing the apathy of 
teachers in the lower grouping, said, "There isn't anybody 
to help you out... nobody down there to push you. "2*^ 

Nevertheless, several persons expressed satisfaction 

with the desegregated school environment. One black high 

school student said: 

Now I feel that students should be integrated 
because most parents give their children, maybe 
unconsciously. . .an outline of people, like black 
people all take drugs and hang out in the streets 
and rob your house and everything.... You won't 
know about people until you mix with them. And I 
think school is really where people get together 
and people mix, and I'd rather go to an integrated 
school than an all-black school. 2** 

A white parent, who chose to bus her children for US 

minutes to attend the predominantly black magnet school in 

the inner city, said: 



102 



My daughter had been to an all-white nursery 
school and to a kindergarten where the black 
children were bused in and it made her think of 
them as being dif ferent. . . so when we heard about a 
public school in Stamford that had a type of 
educational program which we think is very, very 
good, we investigated that and since my daughter 
has been to that school I have seen her come 
around 100 percent. She never refers to race, 
ever. If she talks about the children in her 
classroom, she simply names them. 2* 9 

Most school officials, parents, and students agreed 

that discipline was a continuing problem in the schools. A 

disproportionate percentage of students suspended — more than 

60 percent in 1974 — are black. Students and teachers 

differed about whether black and white students were treated 

equally in disciplinary procedures. One student put the 

problem in the following perspective: 

Basically a teacher doesn't want people to feel 
that they're treating the white kids better than 
the black kids and they overdo it to the point 
where they let the blacks get away with so much 
and the white kids get away with so little that it 
makes the white kids mad. But then you get a 
teacher who says, well, I'm not going to let these 
black kids get away with nothing on me... and it's 
just reverse and the black students get mad. 2 so 

Minority parents and students strongly criticized the 

lack of adequate minority representation in the school 

system. This criticism appeared justified in light of the 

school system's employment profile. In 1975, 76 (5.7 

percent) of the 1,338 total professional staff were black 

and 17 (1.3 percent) were of Spanish origin. In the spring 



103 



of 1976 there were 20 social workers; only 3 (15 percent) 
were black and none was Hispanic. Of 1U psychologists, only 
one was black and none was Hispanic; of 56 special education 
teachers, none was black or Hispanic. Of 48 counselors, 3 
or 6 percent were black and none was Hispanic. ^si 

Although the percentage of black elementary students 
transported increased from 17 percent to 31 percent when the 
plan was implemented, allegations that minority students are 
bused in disproportionate numbers are not supported by the 
evidence. In 1975 the percentage of black students bused 
was approximately 5 percent above their representation in 
the elementary student body. For all grades, the percentage 
of black students bused was approximately equal to their 
representation . 

School staff, parents, and community leaders generally 
believe that the quality of education has improved since 
desegregation. Many persons said they believed that the 
multiracial classroan provides a better education for 
Stamford • s students . 

Dr. Thomas Reardon, an assistant superintendent in the 
school system for many years, said: "I personally can say 
from observation and many other facts that the integration- 
desegregation program has improved the quality of education 



loa 



in Stamford significantly and contributed to the good racial 

relationship and harmony in the city itself." 2s 2 

Findings 

It is evident from the above Stamford open meeting 
that: 

1. School officials, parents, community leaders, and 
civic leaders agree that Stamford had a relatively easy 
desegregation experience. This occurred even though small 
groups of parents were opposed, and business and political 
leaders generally did not take a stand on the issue. 

2. Many students are reported to be satisfied with 
desegregation; however, ability grouping is tending to 
segregate racial and ethnic minorities by classroom at the 
middle and high school levels. 

3. Student discipline is a continuing source of 
concern. A disproportionately high percentage of students 
suspended are blacks. 

H. Minorities are poorly represented on the staffs of 
Stamford schools. 



105 



Corpus Christi, Texas 

Desegregation in Corpus Christi, Texas, has grown from 
a neighborhood concern into a grueling legal battle between 
Mexican Americans and blacks and the predominantly Anglo 
school board. 

Corpus Christi, located on the Gulf Coast, has a 
population of 204,525.253 Approximately ai percent of the 
city's population is Mexican American, 5 percent is black, 
and 53 percent is Anglo. 2 5* The Corpus Christi school 
district in December 1975 had a student enrollment that was 
57 percent Mexican American, 6 percent black, and 37 percent 
Anglo. 

Efforts to desegregate the public schools involve the 
landmark case Cisneros . v. Corpus Christi Independent School 
District . 2 5S On July 22, 1968, Jose Cisneros and 25 other 
Mexican American and black members of the United Steel 
Workers of America Union, Local 5022, filed suit in Federal 
district court alleging that local school authorities had 
operated schools in a discriminatory fashion. On June U, 
1970, a district court found that "Mexican American students 
are an identifiable, ethnic-minority class sufficient to 
bring them within the protection of Brown. "^s* Further, the 
court found that the Corpus Christi Independent School 



106 



District had engaged in the following acts of de jure 

segregation of Mexican American and black students: 

,, .administrative decisions by the school board in 
drawing boundaries, locating new schools, building 
new schools and renovating old schools in the 
predominantly Negro and Mexican parts of town, in 
providing an elastic and flexible subjective 
transfer system..., by bussing [sic] some 
students, by providing optional transfer zones 
which resulted in Anglos being able to avoid Negro 
and Mexican-American schools, not allowing 
Mexican-Americans or Negroes the option of going 
to Anglo schools... by assigning Negro and Mexican- 
American teachers in disparate ratios to these 
segregated schools. ... 2»t 

The court said that these acts were "calculated to, and did, 

maintain and promote a dual school system. "*'• 

After submission of plans by plaintiffs and defendants, 
the court in 1971 issued an order to disestablish the dual 
school system. 2 S9 student assignment plan required pairing 
of elementary schools at two levels, a complete revision of 
high school attendance zones, and further reassignment of 
pupils. The court found that the plan would require 
transportation of approximately 15,000 students. 2»o appeals 
have resulted in numerous plans being submitted to the court 
by the school district. These plans have varied, but 
generally included such measures as pairing of schools, 
district rezcaiing, and voluntary transfer programs. 

Because of delays in the litigation only the voluntary 
transfer program was put into effect during the 1974-75 



107 



school year. When it failed to meet the court's standard. 
Federal District Judge Owen Cox called for an improved plan 
during the 1975-76 school year. 

The major objective of the current plan is to satisfy 
court-ordered ethnic ratios (75 percent majority to 25 
percent minority enrollments) with a minimum of busing. A 
lottery system was devised to determine which students would 
be bused when computer assignmets failed to meet the court- 
imposed ratio. The system is rotational so that a different 
set of children are bused every year. About 5,000 students 
are bused by the school district; more than 2,300 or about 
.U4 percent are transported for desegregation. 

Throughout the entire legal proceedings up to the 
present, the school administration has opposed 
desegregation. Paul Montemayor, a Mexican American member 
of the United Steel Workers of America, in his remarks at 
the open meeting, described the frustrations of trying to 
work with the school board to improve equal educational 
opportunities for Mexican Americans and how the board's 
uncooperative stance led to the filing of the Cisneros 
suit.2«» 

Madelin Olds, assistant professor at Del Mar Junior 
College in Corpus Christi, stated: 



108 



While the... people in Corpus Christi want to obey 
the law, it... has not been clear to a number of 
people why the Corpus Christi schools are under 
Federal court order. .. .There has been no official 
acknowledgment by the Corpus Christi School Board 
of unconstitutional behavior, but evidence in the 
Cisneros case clearly shows and Federal courts 
have agreed that de jure segregation exists. 262 

Another witness, the Reverend Harold Branch, pastor of 

St. John's Baptist Church in Corpus Christi, said: 

[There] has not been a commitment on the part of 
our school administration that [desegregation] is 
good for us and... for our children, that this is 
the way to lead us out of... the ghettoized 
life... in Corpus Christi. 2*3 

The school administration's opposition has extended to 
Commission efforts to obtain information on overall 
desegregation progress in the district's schools. The 
superintendent refused to permit Commission staff to 
interview administrators or teachers. He also refused to 
testify or allow his staff to testify at the Advisory 
Committee's open meeting. As a result, the Commission held 
a hearing in Corpus Christi in August 1976. 

Despite the negative quality of Corpus Christi 's 
educational leadership, there has been an almost total 
absence of violence or disorder during the district's 
limited desegregation efforts. «*♦ is due, in large part, to 
the efforts of the business and religious community in 
Corpus Christi. The media has also played an important role 



109 



in keeping the community informed. The local newspaper, the 
Corpus Christi Caller - Times , provided excellent coverage. 

School administrators have cited white flight as an 
outcome of desegregation. Dr. Dwayne Bliss, assistant 
school superintendent, told the press that the normal 
attrition rate for the Corpus Christi school district is 
about 670. Since the July 1975 desegregation order, more 
than 1,600 students have not returned to school. Of this 
total. Dr. Bliss said, about 600 were Anglos. z*s 

Since many Mexican American pupils in Corpus Christi 
schools have limited ability in English, there is a special 
need for bilingual-bicultural programs. Dr. Arturo Medina, 
professor at Texas A&I in Corpus Christi, told the Advisory 
Committee that school officials often take the attitude that 
the goal of many bilingual programs in Texas is to eradicate 
the original home language. According to Dr. Medina, the 
poor academic performance of many Mexican American students 
can be attributed to the lack of good bilingual-bicultural 
programs. ^6* 

There is also a critical shortage of minorities in 
administrative and teaching positions. The school district 
historically has hired a disproportionately small number of 
Mexican Americans and blacks to fill professional positions 
on its administrative and teaching staffs. The district 

110 



currently employs 3,923 full-time staff; 1,711 or about 4U 
percent are employed as teachers. Minorities are only about 
30 percent of the faculty. Moreover, only six Mexican 
Americans and one black are employed in the top 
administrative positions. Out of a total of 56 principals, 
only 15 are identified as Mexican American or black. On the 
other hand, of the 810 service workers currently employed, 
571 or 70 percent are minorities. Given the fact that 
Mexican Americans and blacks make up more than 63 percent of 
the current student enrollment in the district, there 
appears to be a severe disparity in the employment of 
minority staff. 2*^ 

As a triethnic community. Corpus Christi provides a 
richly endowed setting for its students. A recalcitrant 
school administration and lack of strong leadership at the 
community level have severely restricted the benefits of 
desegregated education. 
Findings 

From the above statement on the Corpus Christi open 
meeting, the following findings are evident: 



111 



1 . Although the Corpus Christi school administration 
is opposed to desegregation and 8 years of litigation were 
required before the school system was ordered to 
desegregate, violence and disruption have been almost 
totally absent since the limited desegregation process 
began. 

2. A critical shortage of minority faculty exists in 
the schools. Although two-thirds of the district's 
enrollment is of minority background, minorities make up 
less than one- third of its teachers. 

3. Despite the fact that more than half of Corpus 
Christi 's student body is of Mexican American background and 
many are fluent only in Spanish, the system lacks a good 
bilingual-bicultural program to meet their educational 
needs. 

SUMMARY OF DESEGREGATION EXPERIENCES — 29 SELECTED SCHOOL 
DISTRICTS 

Twenty-nine desegregating school districts were studied 
by the Commission's State Advisory Committees with 
assistance from regional Commission staff in order to 
discover patterns of the school desegregation process. 
These districts varied in locale, size, and minority 

112 



representation. (See map 2.1 and table 2.2) Descriptions 
of 25 of the case studies follow. 2*8 
The 29 Case Study School Districts 

Boqalusa, Louisiana , a rural southern town located on 
the Staters eastern border, in 1975 had an estimated 
population of 17,415, about 33 percent black. The Bogalusa 
City School District in 197 5 had a student population of 
1,660, of which 1,771 or 38 percent was black. Of the 267 
faculty members, 28 percent was black. In 196 5 the school 
district began court-ordered desegregation under a freedom- 
of-choice plan which did not result in a significant degree 
of desegregation. Total desegregation was ordered in 1969. 

Colorado Springs, Colorado , on the eastern slope of the 
Rocky Mountains, is the State's second largest city. The 
estimated population in 1975 was 175,000, of which 
approximately 8.5 percent was Mexican American, 5.2 percent, 
black, and 1.3 percent, other minorities. Colorado Springs 
School District No. 11 for the 197 5 school year had a 
student population of 34,201, with 3,330 Mexican Americans, 
2,100 blacks, 379 Asian Americans, and 95 Native Americans. 
Of 1,953 faculty members, only 7 percent was minority. In 
1970 the district voluntarily desegregated its high schools. 

Dorchester County, Maryland , is a rural marshland area 
on the eastern shore. The county in 1970 had a total 

113 



population of 29,405, 30.8 percent of which was black. In 
1975 the school enrollment was 6,111, with 2,538 (m 
percent) black students. Of 366 faculty members, 29 percent 
was black. In 1963 the Dorchester County School District 
initiated a freedom-of -choice plan which resulted in only 
token desegregation. In 1971 under pressure from the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the district 
implemented a comprehensive desegregation plan. 

Erie, Pennsylvania , an industrial port city on Lake 
Erie, in 1970 had a population of 129,231 of which 6.8 
percent was black. The Erie City School District in 1975 
had an enrollment of 17,462, with 3,234 (18.5 percent) black 
students. Erie employed 50 minority faculty members (4.5 
percent) of a total of 1,109. The school district was 
initially required to desegregate in 1968 by the State 
department of education. A desegregation plan was ordered 
by the court and implemented in 1975. 

Greenville. Mississippi , is a river port in the 
Mississippi Delta. In 1970, almost 53 percent of the 39,495 
people living in Greenville were black. The Greenville 
Municipal Separate School District is a majority-black 
district enrolling 10,048 students in 1975. While 70 
percent of the student body was black, only 46.7 percent of 
the faculty was black. In 1964 the school board voluntarily 

114 



initiated a freedom-of-choice plan, the first such effort in 
Mississippi. In 1970 under court order, the district 
implemented a comprehensive plan for total desegregation. 

Kalamazoo, Michigan , is an urban area of 85,555. While 
blacks are the largest minority group (8,53U) , there are 
1,579 Latinos in Kalamazoo. In the fall of 1975 the 
Kalamazoo Public Schools had a student population of 14,551, 
of which 2 3 percent was black and 1.3 percent was of Spanish 
origin. Of 817 faculty members, 9.9 percent was minority. 
The district implemented court-ordered desegregation in 
1971. 

The Kirkwood R-J School District, Missouri , is a 
surburban district of St. Louis, Missouri, serving the 
cities of Des Peres, Frontenac, Glendale, and Kirkwood and 
unincorporated areas in St. Louis County. The 1970 
population of the district was approximately 43,034. Blacks 
constituted 5 percent of the population. The school 
district's student population for 1975 was 6,792, with a 
black enrollment of 756 or 11.1 percent. Almost 9 percent 
of the 409-member faculty was minority. Minimal efforts to 
desegregate the legally constituted dual school system were 
begun immediately after Brown . Under pressure from the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Kirkwood 
R-7 district totally desegregated in 1975. 

115 



Little Rock, Arkansas , is the central city of a medium- 
sized metropolitan area. The 1970 population of the city 
was 13 2,483. There were 21,928 students attending public 
schools in the Little Rock School District in 1975. Blacks 
constituted about 52 percent of the student population. 
Black faculty members represented only 29.7 percent of the 
total faculty of 1,212. In 1957 Little Rock made national 
headlines as Federal troops escorted nine black children to 
enroll at Central High School when the school district was 
ordered to desegregate its public schools. In the following 
years a number of desegregation plans were implemented until 
1975 when the district was totally desegregated. 

Nashville, Tennessee , the State capital, is the urban 
and economic hub of the 36-county middle Tennessee area. 
Nashville and Davidson County have a consolidated government 
and a metropolitan school district known as the Metro 
Nashville-Davidson School District. In 1970 Davidson County 
had a total population of 4 4 8,000; approximately 19.9 
percent was black. The 197 5 student population was 80,165, 
with 23,372 (29 percent) blacks. Total faculty in 1975 
numbered 4,500, with 1,092 (24.2 percent) blacks. The 
school district implemented court-ordered desegregation in 
1971. 



116 



CO CO CD 0^ CO (Tn O ' 



:;^ 



«[d1 M 



I r^ vc "Xi "H cr> iH ^ 



r- o -^ r- 



O <H ^ CM 03 ^ 

\0 O <-t 1^ ^ ID 

\D C>i ^ rf O ITi 

rf ^ <o t^ o ■^ 



coor-coo<T^r^(Nt^fMr-»ln 
(NCDinminmr-coOrHor- 
Ol)r^ncocOvo^cN'*i(J^O 

fNOCOr^^COc\|ro^\£)i-tO> 



o r" o o^ 



O '^ '^ CT* 



;^ 



in o in rH ui in 
rH o o n CTi in 
tf O •* CN 'J' in 


^ m o 
m CO o 
o >» o 


r~ m o 
r~ 00 o IN 
.H og o lo 


r- in (TV a\ oi in 


m c'j CO 


CO m t^ - 



cr^ocDOOLOrHr-omcom 
■^OmCDOOCOOtniXinH^ 
^ocooo<7«in(7>mmr-oj 



CO \£) r^ r- r^ (^ 



CT^ C ^ in o iH 
vD r- p- r- r^ p- 

0^ 0^ 0> 0> 0^ ff> 






0^ 0^ 0^ ON 



» c 


mm c 
m 0) _ -a 


fTJ 0) (TJ 


■H C 0) >1 tJl 


r^ -H o< 


ti 10 m -p v< 



to vj c a) - 



en Ti m CL -H N 

3 HI 0) > 10 

-H M X -eg 

10 O O 01 0) 10 



sa 



O IH C 3 > 



c 3 ^ z --I 
o 0) n) nH 



1^ 



ro n ^ ^ 10 
.H C -J O 3 



O *C3fO'aiONIO 
lU30Xl^n)-HnH 



'O ID tj^ tjl (0 



c e a) 10 i-i -H 



ij o o .H c 



„ _ g ^ -p 
ft (0 0) 3 nj 



Q*GjCi;Q;c/)tnEHE-«E-'S 



O r-l 



^ O 10 



u 10 .^ c 



.H t 01 



+J 10 <H 



3 O 



•H -rJ 

6. K 



E^ ;^::^ ^ :;^;^>, 



Newport News, Virginia r in the southeastern portion of 
the State on the James River, is an urban area with a total 
population in 1970 of 138,177 and a black population of 
39,208 (28 percent.) The school population of the Newport 
News Public Schools in 1975 totaled 30,268, of which 37 
percent was black. Minority faculty representation (36.3 
percent) paralleled the minority student enrollment. Early 
efforts to desegregate in the late 1950s and in 1965 when 
the school district operated a freedom-of-choice plan did 
not eliminate the dual school system. After continued 
pressure from the Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare resulting in a cutoff of Federal funds and a court 
order, the Newport News Public Schools implemented a 
comprehensive desegregation plan in 1971. 

Ogden, Utah , is a medium-sized city with a population 
of 7 3,283. Minority students constituted 20 percent of the 
1975 student population of 15,665. Mexican Americans are 
the largest minority group (1,850), Native Americans are 
second (639) , and blacks, third (508) . During the 1974-75 
school year the district employed a total of 605 teachers; 
96.2 percent of all teachers were white. Desegregation 
efforts began in 1970 in the Ogden City School District 
after the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
notified the district that it had a racially identifiable 

118 



school in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
196U. Final desegregation efforts were implemented in 1975. 

Ossining Onion Free School District No. 1, New York, 
serves the Village of Ossining, a portion of the Village of 
Briarcliff Manor, and portions of the Towns of Ossining, New 
Castle, and Yorktown. The population of this suburban area 
is approximately 47,000, and blacks and Puerto Ricans are 
the major minority groups. In the 197 4-75 school year the 
district enrolled a total of 15,136 students of which blacks 
constituted 19 percent and Puerto Ricans, 5 percent. By 
contrast, the faculty of 300 had only 33 (11 percent) 
minority members. After notification from the State board 
of education in 1969, the district began consideration of 
its segregation problems and in 1974 implemented a 
desegregation plan. 

Peoria, Illinois , is an urban area in the north-central 
portion of the State with a population of 126,962. Blacks 
totaled 14,492. The student enrollment in 1975 was 23,907, 
of which 26 percent was black, and less than 1 percent was 
other minorities, other minorities totaled only 232. Of 
1,282 faculty members, only 7.3 percent was minority. The 
Peoria Public School District No. 150 implemented a partial 
desegregation plan in 1969 which achieved a reduction in 



119 



racial isolation. Since that time, shifts in housing 
patterns have caused resegregation. 

Portland, Oregon , a port city of 382,619 on the 
Willamette River, has a minority population of 31,984, of 
which the majority (21,572) is black. Portland School 
District No. 1 had a student enrollment in 1975 of 62,028 — 
12.5 percent black, 4.5 percent other minorities. Eight 
percent of a faculty totaling 3,778 was minority. Beginning 
in 1964 the district initiated a variety of programs in an 
effort to reduce racial isolation such as voluntary 
transfer, which evolved into a desegregation plan. 

Providence, Rhode Island , is the capital of the State 
and its largest city. In 1975 an estimated 165,000 persons 
resided in Providence; 10 percent was black. The 1975 
public school population was 20,680, of which 2 5 percent was 
black. In contrast, minorities made up less than 8 percent 
of the faculty. The Providence School District initiated a 
three-phase desegregation plan in 1967, which was completed 
in 1971. 

Racine County, Wisconsin , located on the shores of Lake 
Michigan, had a 1970 population of 170,838, of which 6.6 
percent was black. Unified School District No. 1 of Racine 
County enrolled 28,757 students in 1975. The district has 
25 percent minority population (5,739), mostly black (4,084) 

120 



with 1,5U2 of Spanish origin. Only 13U of 1,590 (18.4 
percent) faculty members were minority. Desegregation 
efforts began as early as 1961. In 1975 the current 
desegregation plan was implemented. 

Raleigh County, West Virginia , is a rural, coal-mining 
district of 70,080 with 6,880 blacks. In 1975 Raleigh 
County Schools enrolled 17,338 students, of whom 10 percent 
was black. In comparison, 8.6 percent of the faculty was 
black. In 1956 the county initiated a voluntary transfer 
plan. In 196U the district began consolidating its schools, 
and desegregation was completed in 1973 when, under pressvure 
from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, a 
two-phase plan was implemented. 

Santa Barbara, California , is a coastal city of 75,000 
in the southern portion of the State. It has a minority 
population of 14,000, of which 12,570 are of Speinish origin, 
1,500, black, and 600, Asian American. Of the 1975 public 
school enrollment, H8 percent was minority, compared to 8.4 
percent of the faculty. As a result of State 
recommendations, the Santa Barbara School District developed 
a desegregation plan in 1972 to be implemented in three 
phases. To date only two schools have been involved. 
Phases two and three of the desegregation plan have not been 
implemented. 

121 



Springfield, Massachusetts , a city in the southwestern 
area of the State, had a 1970 population of 163,905, of 
which 13 percent was nonwhite.26 9 m 1975 the school district's 
enrollment was 28,839, with 7,668 black and 3,844 Spanish- 
surnamed students (primarily Puerto Ricans.) While almost 
UO percent of the students was minority, only 9.2 percent of 
the faculty was minority. In response to the 1965 
Massachusetts Racial Imbalance Law, the district in 1966 
began efforts to eliminate racial imbalance. In 1974 a 
final desegregation plan was implemented. 

Tempe ^ Arizona , a suburb of Phoenix, is a small 
university city with a 1970 population of 62,90 7 persons. 
Of this total, approximately 14 percent were minorities — 
Mexican Americans (12 percent) , blacks (1 percent) , others 
(1 percent) . In 1975 Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 
enrolled 13,48 2 elementary children. Mexican American 
students accounted for 16 percent of the total, black 
students for 3 percent, and Native Americans for 0.5 
percent. Of 671 faculty members, 11.7 percent was minority. 
In 1971 the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
notified the district that it had racially identifiable 
schools in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964. In 1973 the district implemented a desegregation 
plan. 

122 



Tacoma, Washington , is a port city in the western 
portion of the State on Puget Sound. The city's 1970 
population was 154,581 with 10,436 blacks, 2,248 Spanish- 
surnamed, 1,703 Native Americans, and 1,689 Asian Americans. 
Tacoma Public School District No. 10 enrolled 32,671 
students in 1975, and 6,101 (18.6 percent) were minority. 
Only 9.7 percent of a faculty of 1,612 was minority. In 
196 6 the school district initiated a limited optional 
enrollment plan and in 1967, a more extensive open 
enrollment plan. Although there was no specific 
"desegregation plan," all schools were desegregated by 1971. 

Tulsa, Oklahoma , a central city with a 197 population 
of 330,350, is located in northeastern Oklahoma on the 
Arkansas River. Once known as the oil capital of the 
Nation, Tulsa has an 1 1 percent black population and a 3 
percent Native American population. The Tulsa Independent 
School District had a 1975 student enrollment of 64,207, of 
which blacks and Native Americans, the largest minority 
groups, constituted 17.7 percent and 4.4 percent, 
respectively. Of 3,179 faculty members, 13.7 percent was 
black. 27 Tulsa's first desegregation efforts were made in 
1955 when the district established new neighborhood 
attendance areas to eliminate the dual school system 
previously required by State law. After other efforts, 

123 



Tulsa began implementation of a three-phase desegregation 
plan in 1971. 

Waterloo, Iowa, population 75,563, is located in the 
northeast-central section of the State. Blacks, the only 
significant minority group, constitute 8 percent of the 
population. In 1975 the Waterloo School District enrolled 
16,312 students, of which 8 percent was black. The 
faculty totaled 938, with 56 blacks (5.9 percent). The 
district began its first efforts to desegregate in 1968 with 
the initiation of an open enrollment program which was 
followed by limited redistricting. In 1973 a plan was 
implemented which completed the desegregation process. 

Wichita, Kansas , located in the south-central part of 
the State on the Arkansas River, is a city of 276,718 
persons, 9.8 percent of whom are black and 3.5 percent, of 
Spanish origin. The Wichita School District's 1975 
population was 51,907. Blacks students numbered 9,530 and 
students of Spanish origin, 1,502, with 845 other 
minorities. Minorities made up 11.3 percent of a 3,13U- 
member faculty. The district's first efforts to desegregate 
began in 1969 under pressure from the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare. In 1971 a comprehensive 
desegregation plan was implemented. 



12U 



Williamsburg County, South Carolina , is a rural area 
with a total population of 3U,243, most of whom (61 percent) 
are black. The student population for Williamsburg County 
Schools (9,075) is 80 percent black. The faculty of 467 is 
63 percent black. Required to do so by the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare, the district desegregated in 
1970 and 1971. 
Experiences with School Desegregation 

Analysis of the desegregation experiences of the 29 
school districts is based upon information solicited from 
school systems and personal interviews with nearly 900 
persons. The impressions and perceptions of school 
officials, teachers, students, and business, political, 
religious, and other community leaders in each school 
district have been analyzed and collated to provide a 
profile of each district's most recent school desegregation 
experience. (See table 2.3) 

The Commission found that desegregation has been 
implemented smoothly without disruption in 27 of the 
communities. Of the 29 school districts analyzed, 9 were 
under court order; 11 desegregated under pressure from the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare or a State 
department of education; and 9 had voluntarily desegregated. 
The most frequent methods used to desegregate were 

125 



TABLE 2.3 
DESEOREQATION IN 29 SCHOOL DISTRICTS 
Leaderihlp Support for Deieqraqation Outeomeg of Dea«qr«qation 



School Dlatrlcta 



& 8 -S 

'si ■§! 



^:i 


t^-i 








.9 
1S.S 


it 

§ a 


n 



Berkeley, California 
Bogaluaa, Louisiana 
Colorado Springs, Colo. 
Corpus Chrlsti, Tex. 
Dorchester County, Md. 

Erie, Pennsylvania 
Oreenville, Miss. 
Kalamazoo, Mich. 
Klrkwood, Mo. 

Little Rock, Ark. 
Minneapolis, Minn. 
Nashville, Tenn. 
Newport News , va ■ 
Ogden, Utah 

Ossinlng, N.Y. 
Peoria, 111. 
Portland, Greg. 
Providence, R.I. 
Racine County, Wis. 

Raleigh County, W,Va. 
Santa Barbara, Calif. 
Springfield, Mass. 
Stamford, Conn. 
Tacoma, wash. 



CO 
HEW 



Tempe, Ariz. 


HEW 


Tulsa, Okla. 


HEW/CO 


Waterloo, Iowa 


V 


Wichita, Kans. 


HEW 


Williameburg County, S.C 


HEW 


LEGEND 1 




V - Voluntary. 





Yes 


NO 


NO 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


NA 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


NO 


NO 


Yea 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


No 


No 


No 


NA 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


Yes 


Yes 


Yea 


No 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


No 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


Yes 


NO 


Yes 


Yes 



CO ■ Court Order. 

HEW - Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 

S - State Department of Education. 

* <M The overall progress of desegregation was determined on the basis of the 
perceptions and impressions of persona interviewed in each community. 

1 = Little Progress. 

2 = Moderate Progress. 

3 = Substantial Progress. 

P = Actions or attitudes which created a positive atmosphere for desegregation, including public 
statements of support and initiation of activities to facilitate desegregation. 

C = Actions or attitudes which created a negative atmosphere for desegregation, including public 
statements or actions opposing desegregation. 

N = Noninvolvement. 



NA = Determination could not be made from information jathered in the case study. 

126 



(Continued) 



Table 2.3 Continued 

In rating school districts for the case study investigation, 
the following general criteria were used: (1) Little 
Progress ; Any district which: (a) has undergone only 
token desegregation and where segregation remains a serious 
problem; (b) experienced serious problem in undergoing 
desegregation. (2) Moderate Progress ; Any district which: 

(a) experienced minimal interracial violence in and around 
schools since 6 months after implementation of desegregation; 

(b) had no evidence of significant increases in dropouts or 
absenteeism; (c) is not currently involved in litigation 
concerning an inadequate plan to desegregate or refusal or 
failure to desegregate in accordance with a plan; (d) is 
considered by the National Association for the Advancement 
of Colored People, the Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare, State human rights organizations, or other civil 
rights organizations to have made moderate progress in 
desegregation. (3) Substantial Progress : Any district 
which meets the criteria for moderate progress and at least 
three of the following conditions: (a) minimal interracial 
violence during and since implementation of desegregation; 

(b) curriculum modifications that refect multiracial-multi- 
ethnic nature of the student body; (c) multiracial- 
multiethnic committee used to develop guidelines for disci- 
pline immediately before or since desegregation; (d) train- 
ing provided teachers to prepare them for training in multi- 
racial-multiethnic environment; (e) at least moderate 
integration of extracurricular activities across racial- 
ethnic lines; (f) distribution of minority teachers within 
schools in approximately the same proportion as they are 
represented in the district as a whole; (g) little or no 
white flight as a result of desegregation. As a result, 19 
districts were found to have made substantial progress, 7 
moderate progress, and 3 little, if any, progress. 



127 



reassignments and school closings. However, all districts 
used various combinations of reassignment, school closings, 
rezoning, pairing, grade structure reorganization, magnet 
schools, new construction, open enrollment, and 
clustering. 271 
School and Community Leadership 

Active support and leadership from the school 
administration was found to be a factor in the desegregation 
process. In 26 of the 29 communities studied, the school 
administration supported desegregation and was instrumental 
in paving the way for the smooth implementation of 
desegregation in the community. Examples of positive 
superintendent actions include making public statements in 
support of desegregation, appointing human relations 
committees, and initiating activities and programs to 
facilitate the desegregation process. 

School board support for desegregation is also 
important to effective implementation of desegregation. In 
more than half of the school districts, school boards 
supported desegregation. Advocacy from both the school 
administration and the school board was evident in 1U of the 
29 communities. 

Leadership from other community sources often made a 
valuable contribution to the desegregation process. In some 

128 



communities various political, business, and religious 
leaders publicly supported school desegregation. In 
Greenville, Mississippi, for example, in the face of white 
opposition, the mayor, the chief of police, and members of 
the city council made public appeals for cooperation and 
calm during the desegregation process, and the business 
community mounted a campaign to sell desegregation to its 
opponents. Similarly, the business community in Nashville, 
Tennessee, advertised in support of peaceful desegregation. 
In Colorado Springs, Colorado, where community leaders did 
not actively support desegregation, a businessman said, 
"Desegregation has been as simple as changing to one-way 
streets — inconvenient but one of the least of our problems 
in this community." 
Community Preparation 

In 27 school districts special efforts were made to 
facilitate desegregation, including activities designed to 
inform the community on the progress of desegregation, to 
dispel rumors, to answer questions, to handle crises, and 
generally to smooth the way. In Tacoma, Washington, a 
summer counseling program made more than 1,500 home visits 
to provide parents and students an opportunity to consider 
options about new schools and voluntary transfers. In 
Newport News, Virginia, the superintendent established a 

129 



hotline to respond to rumors and emphasized to school 
personnel the importance of accurately answering questions 
from parents and students. Open houses, prior to opening 
day or during the first weeks of school, were held in 
Newport News, Virginia; Greenville, Mississippi; and 
Kirkwood, Missouri. Kirkwood developed a series of 
information sheets to inform and involve the community in 
the impending reorganization. Direct mail to parents 
explaining desegregation and soliciting cooperation was a 
project in Tempe, Arizona, and Greenville, Mississippi. Ice 
cream socials and orientation programs for incoming students 
were held in Racine, Wisconsin. Other districts mounted 
bumper sticker campaigns, promoted television discussion 
programs, and conducted speaker bureaus. 
Quality of Education 

School desegregation usually requires some revamping of 
a school system. Administrators often take this opportunity 
to make needed changes in curriculum, facilities, 
organization, and teaching methodology. Often the result is 
that overall quality of education is improved. 

In Kalamazoo, Michigan, the school administration began 
a systemwide revision of teaching methods to provide more 
individualized instruction and also developed an 
accountability model to measure student progress. In the 

130 



Kirkwood R-7 School District, improvement of the educational 
program was one of the reasons given by the school 
administration for its reorganization which brought about 
desegregation. One of their endeavors was to initiate new 
teaching procedures. Team teaching was introduced in Santa 
Barbara and Greenville for a more individualized approach. 
In Ogden, Utah, the superintendent said, "Based on reading 
test scores there is evidence that our desegregation has had 
a noticeable [positive] effect on the quality of education." 

Staff training is a vital aspect of a desegregation 
program when teachers are to be working with students of 
diverse cultures. Training was provided for teachers in 24 
of the 29 districts studied. This training encompassed such 
factors as human relations, the diversity of a multicultural 
society, and retraining in academic areas. In Tempe, 
Arizona, 20 percent of the teachers received intensive 
training on the problems of minority students and the 
cultural differences among Anglo, Mexican American, and 
Yaqui Indian children. In Ogden, more than 80 percent of 
the faculty received intensive training in multicultural 
sensitivity and continue to receive training. 

Twenty-three school systems made curriculum changes, 
which often included ethnic studies and bilingual education 
to meet the needs of a desegregated student body. In Tempe, 



131 



however, the Mexican American and Yaqui Indian communities 
were critical of desegregation because bilingual-bicutural 
education was not provided for their children. In 
Providence, Rhode Island, a nongraded curriculum, innovative 
programs at two model schools, and a cross-cultural approach 
to social studies were introduced. The Erie, Pennsylvania, 
school district instituted minicourses to give students a 
greater variety of course offerings. 

Bogalusa perhaps exemplifies the community where 
desegregation has not been successful because the 
administration failed to make an effort to succeed. School 
desegregation received no support from school administrators 
or from the white community. Very little effort was made to 
facilitate desegregation or prepare the community for 
acceptance of the plan. There were no curriculum changes. 
The white faculty was hostile and unprepared for the 
challenges of desegregation; black students have been the 
victims of continued classroom segregation. In the 7 years 
since desegregation, attitudes have not changed. There are 
still two teachers' unions, one white, one black; there are 
two proms, one white, one black; there is still classroom 
segregation. In Bogalusa, where the school and community 
failed to seize the initiative to prepare for a smooth 



132 



transition, the quality of education offered all students 
has suffered. 
Student Attitudes 

In most of the 29 school districts, minority and white 
students are learning to live together harmoniously. 
Students in Nashville have said that the most important 
aspect of desegregation is that it brings a better 
understanding and appreciation of students of different 
races and backgrounds. Students in Raleigh County, West 
Virginia, and Williamsburg, South Carolina, expressed 
positive feelings about a desegregated education. They view 
it as an asset in a multiracial society. A white PTA 
president in Providence said, "The future looks good on the 
basis of the experience of a new generation which never 
attended anything but desegregated schools. " 
NATIONAL SURVEY 

The objective of the national survey was to collect 
factual and attitudinal data on the recent desegregation 
experiences of a random sample of 1,292 school districts, 
8.1 percent of the Nation's 16,032 districts, with nearly 70 
percent of the Nations minority students. These districts 
represent 47 percent of all school systems in the country 
which have enrollments of more than 1,500 students and are 
at least 5.0 percent minority. Usable responses were 

133 



obtained from 993 school superintendents, or 77 percent of 
sampled school districts. 272 

Data from the questionnaires were merged with 
demographic data on the school districts which had been 
collected by the Office for Civil Rights of the Department 
of Health, Education, and welfare. 2^3 Some of the following 
analyses deal only with information from Commission 
questionnaires, some with information from the Office for 
Civil Rights, and others with both sources. 
Year of Desegregation 

According to responses from superintendents, 612 or 
approximately two-thirds of the school districts have taken 
substantial steps to desegregate. Of these, 92 desegregated 
prior to 1966, but most (84 percent) have desegregated 
during the past decade, particularly in the 4-year period 
1968-71. (See table 2.4.) Of those that have desegregated, 
the courts were reported to be the most important impetus in 
34 percent of the school districts; HEW, in 25 percent; and 
local pressures, in 41 percent. The courts and HEW played 
their most active roles during the period 1968-71, while 
over the last 4 years locally-initiated plans have assumed 
greater importance. 



134 





>i 


^ 


— i=r 


n fsj rH u^ US US — 

r^ iH <N n 


O 
O 




A 


< 






rH 




TJ 












C 


o d 


r- 


Tt CO CT^ 'J' in CO 


in 




(0 


t^ a 




00 r^ (N iH in in 

■H (N 






a 

























•■H 












+j 












c 


t^ 










> 


6 ^ 


m 


iH 00 CO CD in M 


o 




u 


o 




CM iH iH iH iH iH 


o 




0) • 


J 






iH 




4J C 


1 










C 


w 










H -rH 


Eh • 










4J 


< 










M-l (0 


t^ 55 


r^ 


CO VD ^ VD CO rH 


in 




ty> 


CO 




in ^ n ^ n n 


in 




dj 








CM 




0) u 












tJi 










'* 


3 m 










tN 


0) 
CO Q 


^ 


« 


CN CM CO o m Ifl 


o 








rH iH CN <?J< 


o 


w 




W 






rH 


^ 


>1-p 


m • 








m 


,Q tn 







00 (Ti CM rH in r* 


CM 


< 


0) 


a 


•)c 


rH iH «* ^D 


in 


tH 


(1) <u 
(0 u 

0) (4-1 








t-i 




V< 


CO ^ 


* 


VO ^ >D rH VD t^ 


o 




tP 


Eh 




CM in 


o 




a) M 


« 






r-{ 




CO m 


D 










S^ 


8c; 




n 00 ro r^ CM in 


00 






S 


* 


H in O rH iH 


o 




+j 






H 


CM 




ro 












^ 












Eh 


Q 


n 


in r~- <n H CO in 








O 


in 


>D VD VO t^ t^ c^ 






ra 


H 


<T\ 


0^ o> o^ o^ o^ o^ 






-P 


« 


iH 


iH rH iH nH iH H 


a 




o 


w 






< 




•H 


04 


1 


1 1 1 1 1 1 


Eh 




^ 








O 




+J 


u 


<-{ 


>* VO 00 O CM •* 


Eh 




CO 


s 


o 


in >x) vo r-* r^ r*- 






•H 


H 


CTi 


CT^ ffi 0^ o^ o^ o^ 






q 


t^ 


iH 


iH rH rH rH iH r-H 





(0 
CO 

•rl 

<u 
o 



135 



Desegregation by Region 

Considerable variation exists among regions in the 
scope of desegregation efforts. Southern districts were 
most affected by desegregation, but desegregation occurred 
to a significant extent in other regions as well. As shown 
in table 2.5, only 5 percent of the 305 districts in the 
Southeast had not taken significant steps to desegregate. 
Approximately one-third of the districts in the Northeastern 
and North central States, and 23 percent of those in the 
West, had taken significant steps to desegregate during the 
decade. Of the 196 incidents of desegregation achieved 
\inder court pressure, TH, or 72 percent, were in the 
southeastern region. (See map 2.2.) Despite recent 
publicity given court actions in Northern and Western 
States, the intervention of the courts has been concentrated 
in the Southern States; Commission data show that nearly 
half of those districts that desegregated were concentrated 
in Southern States. 
Nature and Extent of Desegregation 

To measure the extent to which desegregation was 
actually achieved within a school district, a previously 
developed index of segregation^^* was used to analyze 
changes over time. The data used to compute the index were 
provided by the Office for Civil Rights (HEW) . The index 

136 



ranges from zero (no segregation) to 1.0 (complete 
segregation) . It measures the extent to which minority 
pupils are evenly distributed among the schools in a 
district. For instance, if the proportion of minority 
pupils is the same in every school in the district, the 
index would be zero (no segregation) . The more disparate 
the proportions of minority pupils are in the various 
schools, the higher the index will be; so that, if some 
schools have 100 percent minority enrollment and all the 
others have no minority enrollment, the index would be 1.0. 
If the index of segregation is below 0.20, the level of 
segregation may be described as relatively low. If the 
index of segregation is greater than 0.50, the degree of 
segregation in the district is substantial. 

Table 2.6 shows the changes in the index of segregation 
from 196 8 to 1972. In the 878 school districts for which 
complete data are available, the average index of 
segregation fell from 0.37 to 0.12 during the 4 years 1968 
to 1972. For those districts that took substantial steps to 
desegregate, the average index reduced from 0.53 to 0.12. 
These sampled districts encompass 7,355,000 students, or 15 
percent of the Nation's total student enrollment. Those 384 
districts that experienced their major desegregation before 
1966 or took no substantial steps to desegregate, according 



137 



to the school superintendents, showed a reduction from 0.17 
in 1968 to 0.11 in 1972. Of these districts, 301, or 6 
percent, still had levels of segregation greater than 0.50 
in 1972. 

The changes were greatest in the Southern and Border 
States. According to school enrollment data provided by the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the index of 
segregation of the sampled school districts in the 
Southeastern States fell from 0.65 in 1968 to 0.09 in 1972. 
Among school districts desegregated during the decade, 
substantial reduction was also obtained in the North Central 
and Western States. 

Nationwide, the reduction in the index of segregation 
was greatest in those districts where the impetus for 
desegregation came from the courts. Here the index dropped 
from 0.74 in 1968 to 0.15 in 1972. Districts subject to 
court order were those initially marked by a high degree of 
segregation. Thus, the imposition of court plans brought a 
fundamental change in the racial distribution of students 
within affected school systems between 1968 and 1972. 

The remaining vestiges of public school segregation, 
according to 1972 data, appear to be concentrated in the 
school districts in larger cities; that is, those districts 
with an enrollment greater than 50,000. The index of 

138 



segregation for the sampled school districts in these cities 

which reported steps to desegregate during the decade fell 

from 0.54 in 1968 to 0.27 in 1972. The index indicates that 

segregation in smaller cities and rural areas was greatly 

reduced. 

White Withdrawal from Schools 

There has been considerable controversy over the 
withdrawal of white children from the public schools as a 
response to school desegregation. By combining information 
from the Office for Civil Rights (HEW) on the proportion of 
white students in the school district and Commission survey 
data, it has been possible to examine the relationship 
between desegregation and the loss of whites from the public 
schools. Table 2.7 presents this data by showing the nvimber 
of school districts desegregated over the decade, 2 75 the 
impetus for desegregation, the average percentage loss of 
white students, and the proportion of blacks enrolled in the 
district's schools. Between the years 1968 and 1972, the 
average percentage loss of white students from all 1,164 
districts was 6 percent. 

Very little variation is evident in the average 
reduction of proportion of white students between the 
districts that have desegregated and those that have not; or 
between those that have desegregated by court order, by HEW 

139 



pressure, or by local initiative. These data, therefore, do 
not support the inference that there is a general 
relationship between desegregation and reduction in 
proportion of white students, or between desegregation by 
court order and such reductions. There was no significant 
difference between districts that desegregated under 
pressure from the courts and all districts in the sample. 

The proportion of black students does appear to be 
related to the reduction in the percentage of white 
students. Between 1968 and 1972 districts which were 
greater than 40 percent black in 1968 experienced a 
reduction of 15 percentage points in the proportion of white 
students, a significantly greater loss than for districts 
with lower proportions of black enrollment. Among districts 
with equivalent proportions of minority enrollment, those 
that desegregated under pressure from the courts show no 
greater losses in white enrollment than other districts. 
Although these data do not exclude the possibility or even 
likelihood that many individual white families do withdraw 
their children from public schools when desegregation occurs 
or is expected to occur, those individual decisions are not 
of sufficient magnitude to create a pattern of specific 
association between desegregation and loss of white 
students. 

140 



f-H 


TS 


n 


0) 


() 


+J 


A 


(d 


o 


m 


rn 


<i) 




n 


(1) 


fr 


-p 


<D 


(0 


in 


m 


(\) 


<u 


-n 


^ 




tji 


in 


01 


■P 


Dl 


C) 


0) 


•H 


« 


n 



M-l (U 
•H > 



■p 


>i 




in 


W 




-rH 




rn 


U 


« 


r~- 




U) 


0-^ 


■H 


■P 


.-1 


in 







c 


■H 


1 





M 




•H 


■P 


U) 


tP 


01 


'.O 


(II 


•H 


^^ 


K 


o 


rH 



>?l 



a inl 



C 
























CO 
Eh 




j 


CN 
















■ w 


Oi 




r> 


CO 


o 


•H 


en 


n 


CM 


CM 


CO 


'-r 


D 
C 

w 


< 


en 

H 


o 


«N 


iH 


c 


rH 


rH 


r-t 


< 

u 

CO 




E-. Eh 

2 < 
H U 


& 


C 


VD 


o 


fO 


r^ 


in 


in 


r- 


r- 


r^ 






n 


Eh 


H 


rH 


CNJ 


iH 


VO 


V 


>-i 


f) 


CO 




§5: 


Eh 


(N 
















— CO — 




CO CO 


rtj w 


U 


r^ 


r- 


iH 


r- 


vc 


VO 


r-i 


rH 


CO 




K 


s » 


H 




o 


CVJ 


o 


o 


c 


rH 


H 


< 
u 




►J Q VO 
O VO 


C vo 


K,^ 






















C C en 




S CO 


03 
















T 




K Eh rH 


O c^ 


§:i y 


^3 


00 


O 


CM 


n 


CTi 


m 


r« 


00 




u 




O Q 


-1 


o 

• 


CM 

• 


rH 


en 


H 


H 


r-i 


-M ' 




CO s W 

CO S 

>< P4 O 




Q 
















'^f;} 


r- 


Oi 


t^ 


^ 


o 


VO 


CM 


CM 


CO 




cq w fc. 

E-i w 


.^ 


•4 < 

►J H 




o 


iH 


O 


rH 


H 


rH 


r-{ 


< 




Q CO m 

^ »4 >4 


CM U 


< £h 






















o^ K 


8g 


CO 


n 


CM 


o 


03 


o\ 


rH 


O 


00 




CC H H 


H U 


►4 H 


cn 


H 


eg 


• 


m 


n 


CM 


n 


iH 




a Eh « 


_ w 




"H 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


t 


« 






g§g 


C CO 


















^ 


-CO -^ 




<N 
















(0 




ft* Eh H 


<■ c 


Q 


r~ 




m 


n 


r~ 


o 


VO 


00 


CO 




CO ft^ 




M 


en 


•k 


CM 


CM 


c 


H 


^ 


o 


< 




CO C3 ft* 


VC Eh 


CO 


H 

CO 






* 


* 


* 


* 


* 






CO a 


-H H 


K S 


vc 




VO 


VO 


en 


CM 


CO 


VO 


m 




0^ 


K H 


— H 


« 


— 1 


^r 


in 


in 


in 


in 


r-^ 




o w < 

H S CJ 


^ C/2 
O H 
H C 


Q 


CM 


r» 


in 


'S' 


CM 


CM 


TT 


in 


CO 


Eh ri: U 
S Eh S 
W U 
> Eh W 
« O CO 


§e 


Eh CO 


en 


o 


n 


CN 

• 


i-i 


CM 

• 


CM 

• 


rH 


< 
u 




o o 


« to 


03 
















n 




w s w 

Eh O 




VD 


00 


H 


r- 


O 


VO 


o^ 


•<T 


r< 




S Q 


u u 


U ft. 


C\ 


•-i 


VO 


CNl 


ec 


r>- 


m 


t^ 


•-i 




M H ft^ 






i-» 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 






QO 


fo o 
O h 














J 










O Eh * 














^ 








K 


< W 














K 








i-q 


W K Q 


a o 








1 










CO 


M 


ft* 

CO 




Z H 








Eh 






K 




z 


N 




CO CJ 








fir* 


Z 




H 


Eh 




o 


H 


g 


H O 


z 






CO 


W 




CO 


D 




H 


CO 


cJ « s 


^f1 






< 


u 




< 


O 




CJ 






O Eh M 
1^ CO « 




5 


w 




(X 


W 


CO 




s 


M 


rii 




o 


K 


w 


w 


K 






h^) 


t: 


< H D 


M Eh 
< H 




H 


O 

z 


o 

2 




O 
CO 


Eh 

CO 


Eh 
CO 


^ 


CO 


o 

* 


2 Q Q 
rH rg 



143 



u 

o . 
ft in 
O t^ 



a 


iH 











•H 


c 




■P 


<3 




O 


•H 




3 


+J 




-n 


C 




V 


Q) 




u 


> 

U 




<a 


0) 




C -P 




10 


C 




u 


■iH 




(U 






> 


j5 




a 


•H 




u 


■P 




■H 


n) 




V 


&i 




.c 


« 




•p 


hi 




-c 


V 




c 


(0 




Id 






(0 






4J 


IH 












•H 






U 


0) 




4J 


CJ 


• 


B) 


u 


an 


■^^ 


3 


VD 


■a 





T\ 




V) 


iH 


M-l 









>! 


C 




M 


i-l 



0) 














■p 





























■H 














iH ^ 




^ 




s? 




^ <* 


P "J 


o 




01 


in 


in 


\D VD 


M ff 




o 




^ 


iH 


f-H 


>H 


r-( -rH 


r^ 




CN 




<N 




< o 












.-1 


(1) 
















m 
















c 



















s? 




S? 




S? 




0? 


C4 t 


CO 


n 


(N 


in 


in 


^O in 


U] 




in 




r- 


r-H 


in 


CO 


01 




i-H 










fN 


is OS 
















D 
















<1) 


^ 




0? 




ss 




0? 


w 


o 


iH 


in 


in 


00 


in 


in r-\ 


0) 




r- 




r-{ 


IN 


r-t 


o 


!g Q 




(N 










n 


li) 
















VD 
















• <n 
















01 iH 










^ 




^ 


(U 1 


^ 




^ 




iH 


'f 


n in 


0] 0) 


ro 


<N 


in 


a\ 


<N 




00 


a ^ 




p- 


+ 










-a 
















(U 
















>i p 
















.H (tJ 


>? 




>? 




5^ 




>S 


rH -H 


in 


tN 


r~ 


(N 


in 


O 


00 »* 


m -p 




(N 




"^ 


<N 


<N 


CD 


-H 




iH 










rH 


c 
















J H 
















-o 
















0) 
















u 
















3 
















to 


^ 




^ 




^ 




^ 


(0 


n 


r~ 


rH 


(T. 


^ 


<N 


<N 00 


B U 

X a 




^ 




in 




n 


I-H 


-o 
















<u 
















u 
















D 
















p m 


>S 




^ 








^ 


M CO 


n 


O 


m 


(N 


'* 


(Tv 


(y\ rH 


3 <U 

iH 

o a 




m 




in 


iH 


CO 


t^ 

" 


10 


c 


M-l 


(0 


C 


M-l 


to 


C 


M-l 


(0 


c 


MH (0 


p 








P 








P 








P 





P 


c 


OJ -H 







(U -H 







(U -rH 







0) -H 





<u 


IT> P 


u 


•H 


&i P 


iH 


■rH 


tjl p 


in 


•rH 


&1 P 


M -rH 


TD 


ra u 


Q) 


M 


ro U 


4) 


U 


(0 


Q) 


iH 


ro 


<D iH 


3 
P 


iH 3 

0) TJ 


i 


P 
to 


iH 3 

0) -a 


i 


P 

in 


iH 3 




p 

10 


in 3 


■Q p* 


W 


> 0) 


3 


■I-l 


> OJ 


3 


•rH 


> 0) 


3 


•rH 


> S 


n .rH 


X 


< « 


a 


Q 


< « 2 


Q 


< « 


g 


Q 


< OS 2 Q 


U CO 
















(0 VO 
















r-\ ffl 


^ 




,;>; 








P 









u 




fl 







g S 


rO 




10 




iH 




• rH 


-H 


iH 




n^ 




fl 




^ 


•H 
■P 

u 


fl 

^ 








o 




P 

• H 





O 




o 




o 




Q 


ft 


<N 




>* 




r-H 









1 
O 




1 
o 


1 
o 




rH 








<N 


^,,. 


__ 


< 



144 



Desegregation and Disruption 

Superintendents of those school districts that 
desegregated during the last decade reported that the 
overwhelming majority (82 percent) desegregated without 
serious disruption. 2 76 of the 96 respondents who indicated 
serious disruption, only 6 are outside Southern or Border 
States. Disruption was more likely to occur in those 
districts under court order than in those districts that 
took substantial steps without court order. 

According to respondent superintendents in districts 
desegregated during the last decade, the extra assignment of 
police took place in 1 school district in every 15. Of the 
3t» districts in the sample that required extra assignment of 
police, 26 were in Southern and Border States. In only 10 
districts did the additional police assignments exceed 2 
months. In about half of the cases where police were 
assigned, the educational process was reported disrupted for 
a period exceeding 2 weeks. 
Perceived Quality of Schools 

School superintendents of the desegregated school 
districts reported positive attitudes toward schools and 
little change in the quality of education after 
desegregation. Among these superintendents, 75 percent saw 
no change in quality, 15 percent reported improvement, and 

145 



only 10 percent reported deterioration. Seven percent 
described the quality of education as fair or poor, whereas 
62 percent said it was good, and 31 percent considered it 
excellent. 
Community Attitudes 

Diiring the years since the implementation of 
desegregation, superintendents reported a marked change in 
community attitudes toward school desegregation in most 
school districts. According to superintendents, while 
general opposition among white parents prevailed prior to 
desegregation, there is now widespread support. Of the 
desegregated districts, 20 percent of the superintendents 
reported that desegregation had the support of white parents 
and business leaders prior to implementation of 
desegregation. The support of these groups is now seen in 
over half of the districts. (See figures 2.1 and 2.2.) 
General support for desegregation by minority parents was 
reported in 79 percent of the desegregated districts. 
Summary of Findings from Survey 

The survey of school districts' experiences provides 
the following findings: 

• Extent of Desegregation — Among school districts 
with enrollments in excess of 1,500 and 5 percent minority 
students, 54 percent took substantial steps to desegregate 

146 



during the 1966-75 decade. The courts were described as the 
most important impetus for desegregation in 37 percent of 
the desegregated districts. While desegregation was most 
concentrated in the South, substantial desegregation 
occurred in other parts of the country, affecting 33 percent 
of districts in the northeastern and north central regions. 

• Nature of Desegregation - -The districts that took 
substantial steps to desegregate showed major reductions in 
segregation, especially in those districts desegregated 
under court pressure. Courts were reported to act primarily 
when the degree of existing segregation was high. 

• Withdrawal of Whites — while many school districts 
lost significant numbers of white students as shown by 
enrollment changes from 1968 to 1972, there are no 
significant differences between those districts that 
desegregate under pressure from the courts and HEW, and all 
districts in the country. The data do show that loss of 
white students is greater where black enrollments exceed UO 
percent. 

• Disruption — The overwhelming majority (82 percent) 
of school districts that desegregated are reported to have 
done so without serious disruption. 

• Community Acceptance — A majority of school 
superintendents of the schools desegregated during the last 

147 



decade state that both white parents and minority parents 
generally support desegregation. Moreover, after 
desegregation there was a dramatic positive change in the 
attitudes of white parents. 



148 



Before 1976 
1976 




Support 



Neutral 



Oppose 



Figure 2.1 -BUSINESS LEADERS: general response to school desegregation, just before 

desegregation and in 1976, in districts that desegregated 
1966-75, as reported by school superintendents. 




Support 



Neutral 



Oppose 



Figure 2.2-NONMINORITY PARENTS: general response to school desegregation, just before 

desegregation and in 1976, in districts that desegregated 
1966-75, as reported by school superintendents. 



Notes to Chapter II 



1. statement on New School Desegregation by the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights, Nov. 11, 1975. 

2. These Commission reports include: 1961 Report , vol. 2, 
Education; Southern School Desegregation, 1966 -67; Racial 
Isolation in the Public Schools (1967) ; Federal Enforcement 
of School Desegregation (1969) ; Your Child and Busing 
(1972) ; Five Communities: Their Search for Equal Education 
(1972) ; The Diminishing Barrier: A Report on School 
Desegregation in Nine Communities (1972) ; School 
Desegregation in Ten Communities (1973) ; Twenty Years After 
Brown; Eguality of Educational Opportunity (1975) ; and The 
Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort - 197t»; To Ensure 
Egual Educational Opportunity (1975) . 

Studies dealing with equal education problems among 
language-minority students include the 6 -volume Mexican 
American Education Project: Ethnic Isolation of Mexican 
Americans in the Public Schools of the Southwest (1971; The 
Unfinished Education (1971; The Excluded Student (1972) ; 
Mexican American Education in Texas; A Function of Wealth 
(1972) ; Teachers and Students (1973) ; Toward Quality 
Education for Mexican Americans (197U) ; and a recent study, 
A Better Chance to Learn; Bilingual - Bicultural Education 
Tl975) . 

The Commission has also explored developments in school 
desegregation in its quarterly journal, the Civil Rights 
Digest . The Summer 1973 issue, for example, was devoted 
entirely to school desegregation. 

3. See, for example, John Egerton, School Desegregation; A 
Report Card from the South (Atlanta: Southern Regional ~ 
Council, 1976) . 

a. The Commission has an Advisory Committee in each State 
and in the District of Columbia which reports on local civil 
rights issues and developments. 

5. U.S., Commission Civil Rights, staff report. School 
Desegregation in Boston (June 1975), p. 63. (hereafter 
cited as School Desegregation in Boston) . Mass. Gen. L. Ch. 
71 §§37C and 37D (1969) (Supp. 1975). 



150 



6. U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
Office for Civil Rights, Elementary and Secondary Public 
School Survey, Fall 1973. 

7. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, Desegregati ng the 
Boston Public Schools; A Crisis in Civic Responsibility 
(August 1975) (hereafter cited as Crisis in Civic 
Responsibility ) , p. xvi. 

8. Ibid. , p. xvii. 

9. Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F. Supp. 410 (D. Mass. 1974) . 

10. Id. at H2H. 

11. Id. at 476-77. 

12. School Desegregation in Boston , p. 77. 

13. Boston Globe , May 25, 1975, p. A- 15, summarizing events 
of the previous year. 

14. Crisis in Civic Responsibility , p. v. 

15. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, hearing, Boston, 
Mass., June 16-20, 1975, transcript, p. 283 (hereafter cited 
as Boston transcript) . 

16. Boston transcript, p. 329. 

17. Ibid., testimony of John McDonough, p. 1057. 

18. Ibid., testimony of John Kerrigan, p. 1057A. 

19. The testimony of one school* committee member 
degenerated to the level of name-calling with respect to the 
Vice Chairman of the Commission. See testimony of John 
Kerrigan, Boston transcript, p. 1090. 

20. Ibid., testimony of Boston City Council members Louise 
Day Hicks, Gerald O'Leary, Lawrence Di Cara, and Albert 
O'Neil, pp. 1226-65. 

21. Boston transcript, p. 967. 



151 



22. Boston transcript, p. U72. 

23. Ibid., pp. 967-68. 

24- School Desegregation in Boston , p. 100. 

25. Ibid., p. 98. 

26. James E. Fisk and Raymond T. Galvin, "Report on the 
Boston Police Department during the 1974-75 School 
Desegregation," report to the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights, June 30, 1975, p. 16. 

27. Boston transcript, p. 23U. 

28. Affidavit of Paul V. Smith, educational data analyst. 
Children's Defense Fund of the Washington Research Project, 
Inc., filed in Morgan v. Kerrigan, Civ. Action No. 72-911-G. 

^' Boston transcript, testimony of Donald Burgess, acting 
headmaster, Roslindale High School, p. 636-37. 

30. Ibid., testimony of Helen Moran, former headmistress, 
Roslindale High School, pp. 625-26. 

31. Ibid., Burgess testimony, pp. 63t-35. 

32- Memorandum of Decision and Remedial Orders, Morgan v. 
Kerrigan, UOI F. Supp. 270 (D. Mass. 1975), motion for stay 
denied, 523 F.2d 917 (1975). 

33. Boston transcript, p. 94-95. 

^^' Ibid., p. 709. 

35. Ibid., Atkins testimony, pp. 955-56. 

^^ Ibid., 0« Sullivan testimony, pp. 706-707. Mr. 
0« Sullivan noted the "filth, the paint peeling off the 
walls. The girls' gym hadn't been heated in 3 years... the 
ladies' room for the girl students hadn't had doors on them 
for 2 years." 

37* Edward Redd, executive director, Boston NAACP, 
interview, Boston, Mass., July 14, 1976; and Boston Globe, 
July 1976, p. 82. 



152 



38. Tom Marshall, field representative. Community Relations 
Service, U.S. Department of Justice, Region I, telephone 
interview, July 13, 1976. 



39, Martin Walsh, Regional Director, Community Relations 
Service, U.S. Department of Justice, Region I, telephone 
interview, July 13, 1976. 

40. Appointed Apr. 2 9, 1976, the 13-member committee met 
with senior city and State officials and community leaders 
and issued a report calling, among other things, for 
stronger leadership by the mayor, a uniform code of 
discipline for the school system, and a more 
"representative" Boston School Committee. Mayor's Committee 
on Violence, memorandum to Mayor Kevin White, June 23, 1976. 



41. Ibid. 

42. Marion Fahey, superintendent; Charles Leftwich, 
associate superintendent; Paul Kennedy, associate 
superintendent; Luis Perullo, director of evaluation; 
Francis X. Rich, acting director for reading; Jean Sullivan, 
Office of (Desegregation) Implementation, interviews, July 
13 and It, 1976. 

43. School Department Annual Report, p. 16. 

44. Edward Redd, interview, July 14, 1976. 

45. Jessica Pearson and Jeff Pearson, "Litigation and 
Community Change: Desegregation of the Denver Public 
Schools," February 1976. 

46. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, transcript of public 
hearings, Denver, Colo., Feb. 17-19, 1976, testimony of 
Minoru Yasui, Denver Commission on Community Relations, 
transcript, pp. 201-02 (hereafter cited as Denver 
transcript) . 

47. Pearson and Pearson, "Litigation and Community Change," 
p. 1. 

48. Ibid., pp. 39-42. 

49. Ibid., p. 46. 

153 



50, 



Ibid. 



U8. 



51, Keyes v. School District No. 1, 313 F. Supp. 61 and 313 
F. Supp. 90 (D. Colo. 1970) af f d in part, rev* d in part and 
remanded , HH5 F.2d 990 (10th Cir. 1971), modified and 
remanded , 413 U.S. 189 (1973), 368 F. Supp. 207 (D. Colo. 
1973), 380 F. Supp. 673 (D. Colo. 1974), aff d in part, 
rev*d in part and remanded 521 F. 2d 465 (10th Cir. 1975) , 
cert, denied 46 L.Ed. 2d 657 (1976). 

52, 413 U.S. 189, 198 (1973). 

53, Keyes v. School District No. 1, 46 L.Ed. 2d 657. 

54, Denver transcript, p. 26. 

55, Ibid., p. 542. 
p. 533 (Board Resolution No. 1796, May 10, 



56, Ibid. 
1974) . 



57. 
58. 

59, 
60. 
61. 
62. 
63. 

64. 
65, 



Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 



66. Ibid. 
Education, 



67, 
68. 



Ibid. 
Ibid. 



633 ff. 

635. 

86. 

543. 

658. 

120. 

122. 

301 



see, for example, testimony of Paul Blue, 



executive director, KRMA-TV, p. 749. 



testimony of Richard E. Wylie, dean. School of 
University of Colorado at Denver, p. 158. 

pp. 389, 795, 523. 

p. 328. 



154 



69. Ibid., p. 308. 

70. Ibid., p. 1065-66. 

71. Ibid.r p. 1042. 

72. Ibid., p. 99. 

73. Ibid., p. 635. 

74. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §22-24-101 et seq. (Cum. Supp. 
1975) . 

75. Denver transcript, p. 97. 

76. Ibid. , p. 503. 

77. Ibid,, p. 969. (Less than 5 percent of the system's 
teachers are Hispano.) 

78. Ibid., p. 255. 

79. Ibid., p. 1013. 

80. U.S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 
Statistical Abstract of the United states, 1974 , p. 906. 

81. U.S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the census, 
1970 Census of Population, Characteristics of the 
Population , Vol. I, Part 11, Florida, Section I, p. 11 — 163, 
11-536 (hereafter cited as 1970 Census ) . 

82. Hillsborough County, Planning Commission, Population 
and Housing Estimates: Apr. 1, 1970-Jan. 1, 1975, April 
1975. 

83. 1970 Census, p. 11-206 and Hillsborough County 
Population Estimates , p. 22. 

84. 197 census , pp. 11-311, 11-341. 

65. Each of Florida's 67 counties has a school district. 

86. Hillsborough County, Elementary and Secondary Pupil 
Survey (1975) . 



155 



87. Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough 
county, Florida, No. 355a Civ. T (M.D. Fla. decided May 11, 
1971) . 

88. Id. at 4. 

89. Id. at 8-9. 

90. Mannings v. Bd. of Public Instruction 306 F. Supp. 497 
(M.D. Fla. 1969) . 

91. Mannings v. Bd. of Public Instruction 427 F. 2d 874 
(5th Cir. 1970) . For definitions of these and other 
desegregation techniques, see "Restructuring of School 
Districts. " 

92. Hillsborough County School Desegregation Plan, 1971. 

93. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, Five Communities; 
Their search for Equal Education (1972) , and School 
Desegregation in Ten Communities (1973) . 

94. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, hearing, Tampa, Fla., 
Mar. 29-31, 1976 (hereafter cited as Tampa transcript). 

95. Tampa transcript, p. 38. 

96. Ibid., p. 39. 

97. Tampa Tribune editorial, July 7, 1971. 

98. Tampa transcript, p. 177. 

99. Ibid., p. 559. 

100. Ibid., p. 564-65. 

101. Ibid., p. 293. 

102. Ibid., pp. 292-93. 

103. Ibid., p. 331. 

104. Ibid., p. 62. 

105. Louisville Area Chamber of Commerce, Louisville Area 
Directory of Manufacturers , 1975-76. 



156 



106. Louisville Area Chamber of Commerce, Louisville Fact 
File Manpower , p. 10, undated. 

107. Ibid., p. 11. 

108. Louisville Area Chamber of Commerce, Louisville 
Business Trends , 1975. 

109. Percentages which were unavailable for 1975 are based 
on 1970 U.S. Bureau of the Census, County and City Databook 
- 1972 . 

110. Jefferson County Board of Education, Nximber of Black 
and White Pupils and Percentage Black, Nov 17, 1975. 

111. Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of Education, U89 
F. 2d 925, 929 (6th Cir. 1973). 

112. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §158.130. 

113. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §160.041(1971). 

114. At the time of the vote, however, it was clear that if 
a merger were not effected under State law, the Federal 
district court would have required merger pursuant to a 
sixth circuit ruling in December 1974 calling for 
interdistrict remedy. Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board 
of Education, 510 F.2d 1358 (6th Cir. 197t») . 

115. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §160.041(1971). A specific 
statutory provision insuring representation of Louisville 
constituencies on a merged board in the event the Louisville 
Board decided to cease operations was adopted by the State 
legislature in 1975. 

116. Louisville Public Schools, Department of Education and 
Research, 1974-75 Membership Report, p. 61. 

117. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, hearing, Louisville, 
Ky., June 14-16, 1976, testimony of John Bell, Jefferson 
County Board of Education, p. 821-22 (hereafter cited as 
Louisville transcript) . 

118. Marie T. Doyle, "The Public School Merger Issue in 
Jefferson county, Kentucky" (doctoral dissertation) , 
University of Kentucky, 1974. 



157 



119. Jefferson County Public Schools, 1974 - 75 Annual 
Statistical Report (January 1976) , p. 2U. 

120. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §158.020. 

121. Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of Education, U89 
F.2d 925, 927-28 (6th Cir. 1973). 

122. Id., 489 F.2d at 930. 

123. Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Gordon, 521 F.2d 578 (6th 
Cir. 1975). 

124. Complaint, Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of 
Education, Civil Act. No. 7045, (W.D. Ky. , filed Aug. 27, 
1971) . 

125. Complaint, Haycraft v. Board of Education, Civil Act 
No. 7291 (W.D. Ky., filed June 22, 1972). 

126. Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of Education, 489 
F.2d 925 (6th Cir. 1973). 

127. Id. at 932. 

128. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974). 

12 9. Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of Education, 510 
F. 2d 1358, 1360 (6th Cir. 1974). 

130. Board of Education v. Newburg Area Council, Inc., 421 
U.S. 931 (1975) . 

131. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Newburg Area 
Council, Inc. v. Board of Education, Civil Act. Nos. 7045 
and 7291, (W.D. Ky., July 30, 1975). 

132. Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of Education, Civil 
Act. Nos. 7045 and 7291 (W.D. Ky., appeal argued June 14, 
1976, before three- judge panel, decision pending as of July 
23, 1976) . 

133. Memorandum Order and Opinion, Newburg Area Council, 
Inc. V. Board of Education (W.D. Ky., May 18, 1976). 



158 



134. Order of Dec. 22, 1975, Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. 
Board of Education, C.A. Nos. 7045 and 7291 (W.D. Ky. , Dec. 
19, 1975) . 

135. Order of Apr. 1, 1976, Newburg Area Council v. Board of 
Education, C.A. Nos. 7045 and 7291 (W.D. Ky., March 1976). 

136. Louisville transcript, testimony of Darrell Moore, 
Durrett High School, p. 27. 

137. Ibid., testimony of Wanda Hoosier, Iroquois High 
School, p. 30. 

138. Ibid., testimony of Mary Theresa McAnnally, Thomas 
Jefferson High School, p. 28. 

139. Ibid., testimony of Darrell Moore, Durrett High School, 
pp. 48-49. 

140. Ibid., pp. 76-77. 

141. Ibid., p. 392. 

142. Ibid., p. 367. 

143. Ibid., p. 368. 

144. Ibid., p. 442-43. 

145. Ibid. 

146. Ibid., testimony of Galen Martin, executive director, 
Kentucky Commission on Human Rights, p. 392. 

147. Ibid., testimony of Todd Hollenbach, pp. 462-64, 474- 
75, 479-80. 

148. Ibid., p. 480. 

149. Louisville, Ky., Office of the Mayor, press release, 
testimony of Harvey I. Sloane, presented to the Committee on 
the Judiciary U.S. Senate, Oct. 29, 1975, p. 14. 

150. Louisville transcript, pp. 467-68. 

151. Ibid., p. 390. 



159 



152. Ibid., testimony of Russell McDaniel, chief, Jefferson 
County Police, and Lt. Col. Leslie Pyles, commander, 
Kentucky State Police Department, pp. 421-22. 

153. Ibid., pp. 398-99, 418-19. 

154. Ibid., pp. 419-20, 428-29. 

155. Ibid., p. 453. 

156. Ibid., p. 190. 

157. Ibid., testimony of Roy H. Reubenstahl, vice president 
and general manager, ASP Foods, Inc., Louisville Division, 
p. 109. 

158. Ibid., p. 192. 

159. Ibid., testimony of Robert Kling, Kling Company, p. 
172. 

160. Ibid., pp. 174-75. 

161. Ibid., testimony of James L. Watkins, manager, KIMECO 
Variety Store, Fairdale, pp. 177-78, 180. 

162. Ibid., testimony of Stanley Gault, vice president. 
Major Applicance Division, General Electric, p. 205. 

163. Ibid., p. 206. 

164. Ibid., testimony of John Harmon, president, UAW; 
Leonard Smith, executive secretary, AFL-CIO; John Shre, 
chairman. United Labor Against Busing, pp. 245-62. 

165. Ibid., testimony of Lyman Johnson, p. 387. 

166. Ibid., testimony of Galen Martin, p. 375. 

167. Ibid., p. 376. 

168. Ibid., testimony of Lois Cronholm, p. 379. 

169. Ibid., p. 395. 

170. Ibid., testimony of John Bell, p. 842. 



160 



171. Ibid. 

172. Ibid., testimony of Joel Henning, pp. 678-714. 

173. Ibid., testimony of Camellia Brown, chairperson, 
Louisville-Jefferson County Defense Project, p. 578. 

174. Ibid., p. 579. 

175. Ibid., p. 724. 

176. Ibid., testimony of J.C. Cantrell, p. 730. 

177. Ibid., p. 731. 

178. Ibid., testimony of Mary Theresa McAnnally, p. 40. 

179. Ibid., p. 722. 

180. Ibid., testimony of Mary Theresa McAnnally, p. 29. 

181. Ibid., testimony of Gene Bolton, Fairdale High School, 
p. 517, 

182. Ibid., testimony of Paul Brown, p. 405. 

183. Ibid., testimony of Vicki Brewer, Shawnee High School, 
p. 525. 

184. Ibid., testimony of Fannie Gul, human relations 
coordinator. Valley High School, p. 509. 

185. Ibid., testimony of Martha Hedrick, teacher, Smyrna 
Elementary School, p. 114. 

186. Ibid., testimony of Gloria Fischer, president. Parent 
Teacher Association, Central High school, p. 602. 

187. Ibid., testimony of Robert Cunningham, founder. Parents 
for Quality Education, p. 71. 

188. U.S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 
Characteristics of the Population , part 6, California , table 
6, p. 11. 

189. Ibid., table 23, p. 103, and table 96, p. 679. The 
Anglo percentage was computed by subtracting the Spanish- 



161 



origin population in table 96 from the white population in 
table 23. 

190. Berkeley Unified School District, Report of the Student 
Racial Census, Fall 1975 (mimeographed), p. 1. 

191. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, California Advisory 
Committee open meeting, Berkeley, Calif., Mar. 19, 20, 1976, 
transcript , p. B-158. (hereafter cited as Berkeley 
transcript) . 

192. Berkeley transcript, testimony of Judge Spxirgeon 
Avakian, former school board member, p. A-13. 

193. Ibid., pp. A-13-15. 

194. Carol Sibley, Never a Dull Moment (Berkeley, Calif.: 
Documentation and Evaluation of Experimental Projects in 
Schools, 1972) , p. 50. 

195. Berkeley transcript, p. A-8. 

196. Ibid., pp. A-18-19. 

197. Ibid., p. A-21. 

198. Ibid., pp. A-25-26. 

199. Ibid., p. A-U3. 

200. Ibid., testimony of Alan Young, counselor, p. B-85. 

201. Ibid., pp. B-79-80. 

202. Ibid., testimony of Jimmy Harold, Jr., student body 
president, Berkeley High School, pp. A-123-2U; testimony of 
Donna McKinney, parent, p. B-111; testimony of Judy Bingham, 
president, Berkeleyans for Academic Excellence, p. B-182. 

203. Ibid., pp. B-124-25. 

204. Ibid., p. B-123, 

205. Ibid., testimony of Judy Bingham, p. B-182. 

206. Ibid., testimony of Clementina Almaguer, coordinator, 
Chicano studies program, pp. A-1 72-73. 



162 



207. Ibid., p. B-69. 

208. Ibid., p. B-69. 

209. Ibid., p. A-56. 

210. Ibid., p. B-m9. 

211. Ibid., p. A-26. 

212. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Minnesota Advisory 
Committee, open meeting, Minneapolis, Minn., Apr. 22-24, 
1976, transcript, pp. 18-27. (hereafter cited as 
Minneapolis transcript) . 

213. Ibid., p. 19. 

214. Booker v. Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, 
Minn., 351 F. Supp. 799 (D. Minn., 1972). 

215. Id. at 802-804. 

216. Id. at 803. 

217. Id. at 804. 

218. Minneapolis transcript, p. 398. 

219. Ibid., p. 26. The court recently stated that the 
enrollment of any particular minority group could not exceed 
35 percent. The total of all minority groups could not 
exceed 42 percent in a particular school. Court Order of 
May 7, 1975, D. Minn. CA4-71-Civ 382. 

220. Minneapolis transcript, p. 18. 

221. Ibid., p. 421. 

222. Ibid., p. 69. 

223. Ibid., pp. 71-72. 

224. Ibid., p. 92. 

225. Ibid., p. 398. 
226- Ibid., pp. 471-72. 

163 



221 . 


Ibid. 


r P- 


188. 


228. 


Ibid. 


r P- 


U2U. 


229. 


Ibid. 


r PP 


392 and 411. 


230. 


Ibid. 


r P. 


963. 


231. 


Ibid. 


r p. 


564. 


232. 


Ibid. 


r p. 


566. 


233. 


Ibid. 


r pp. 


215 and 218. 


234. 


Ibid. 


r p. 


631. 


235. 


Ibid., 


P- 


515. 


236. 


Ibid. 


r p. 


834. 


237. 


Ibid. 


r p. 


630. 


238. 


Ibid. 






239. 


Ibid. 


r P- 


330. 


240. U.S., 
Character! 


Department of Commerce 
3tics of the Population 



table 16, p. 36. 

241. Ibid., table 23, p. 53 and table 96, p. 311. The white 
percentage was computed by subtracting the Spanish-origin 
population in table 96 from the total total white population 
in table 23. 

242. Moss V. Stamford Board of Educ. 350 F. Supp. 879 (D. 
Conn. 1972) . 

243. Moss V. Stamford Board of Educ. 356 F. Supp. 675 (D. 
Conn. 1973) . 

244. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, Connecticut Advisory 
Committee open meeting, Stamford, Conn., Apr. 19, 1976, 
transcript (hereafter cited as Stamford transcript) . 

245. Stamford transcript, p. 67. 

246. Ibid., p. 469. 



164 



2H1. Ibid., p. 2HH. 

2U8. Ibid., p. 232. 

2U9. Ibid., p. 115. 

250. Ibid., p. 228. 

251. Margaret C. Toner, director of special pupil services, 
Stamford School Department, staff interview. Mar. 5, 1976. 

252. Ibid., p. aUB. 

253. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 
Characteristics of the Population , part 45, Texas , table 16, 
p. 96. 

25a. Ibid., table 23, p. 117 and table 96, p. 683. The 
Anglo percentage was computed by subtracting the Spanish- 
origin population in table 96 from the total white 
population in table 23. 

255. 324 F. Supp. 599 (S.D. Texas, 1970) . 

256. Ibid., p. 606. 

257. Ibid., pp. 617-19. 

258. Ibid., p. 620. 

259. Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, 
330 F. Supp. 1377 (S.D. Texas, 1971). 

260. Ibid., pp. 1393-96. 

261. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, Texas Advisory 
Committee open meeting. Corpus Christi, Tex., May U-5, 1976 
(hereafter cited as Corpus Christi transcript) . 

262. Ibid., vol. I, p. 17. 

263. Ibid., vol. I, p. 39. 

26i». Corpus Christi Caller Times , "Busing: First Year is 
Relatively Quiet," Dec. 21, 1975, p. 1-C. 



165 



26 5. Corpus Christi Caller Times , "Junior High Shuffle Not 
Certain," Feb. 18, 1976, p. 1-B 

266. Corpus Christi transcript, vol. Ill, p. 86. 

267. U.S., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 
Elementary-Secondary School Staff Information, EEO-5 Public 
School System-CCID, Oct. 1, 1975. 

268. Four of the case studies — Berkeley, California; Corpus 
Christi, Texas; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Stamford, 
Connecticut — were also open meeting sites and were described 
in the previous section. 

269. Person of Spanish origin were classified as white. 

270. Native Americans were classified as white. 

271. For a definition of these and other desegregation 
techniques, see chap. Ill, sec, "Restructuring School 
Districts. " 

27 2. Unusable responses to the superintendents' 
questionnaires were those which left 8 or more questions 
unanswered or did not indicate whether the district had 
taken steps to desegregate. Because of missing data on some 
questionnaires, the number of districts may vary from table 
to table. An attempt to sample opinion from others in the 
school districts yielded unreliably low levels of usable 
responses: only 23 percent of the heads of chambers of 
commerce, 35 percent of the NAACP chapter presidents, and 17 
percent of the mayors or city managers produced usable 
questionnaires. 

273. Approximately 18 percent of the districts for which 
data are available in 1972 do not have comparable data for 
1968. Those districts are not included in the analyses. 

27U. see James S. Coleman, Sara D. Kelly, and John A. Moore, 
Trends in School Segregation, 1968 - 73 (Washington, D.C.: The 
Urban Institute, 1975), p. 9. 

275. Table 2.7 was also computed for those districts that 
desegregated during 1968-72 as well as 1968-70. The 
computations showed no significant departure from the 
figures presented in table 2.7 for those districts 
desegregated throughout the 10-year period. 

166 



276. Serious disruption is defined as "serious disruptions 
of the educational process for a period greater than two 
weeks. " 



167 



III. EXPERIENCE WITH SCHOOL DESEGREGATION 
The following section describes the various elements of 
the desegregation process, including the means by which it 
has been and is being brought about in hundreds of school 
districts, and the impact that it has on various important 
aspects of public education and community life generally. 
Perhaps the most important ingredient in successful 
school desegregation is leadership, both at the community 
level and in the schools. The creation of one desegregated 
public school system involves substantial administrative and 
social change. The school board, school administrators, 
political leaders, police officials, religious and business 
groups, the media, and other public and private 
organizations can and must explain the law and insist that 
it will be enforced. They must also ensure that 
desegregation will be achieved through careful and thorough 
planning. The record shows that where such leadership 
exists, desegregation is more likely to be achieved with 
minimal difficulty. Where it is lacking, on the other hand, 
desegregation may be accompanied by confusion, anxiety, and 
perhaps disruption on the part of students or, more likely, 
parents. 

As part of the planning for school desegregation, 
administrators should develop projects to involve and inform 



168 



the conununity in all aspects of desegregation. Where such 
planning exists, school administrators have been able to 
develop support and acceptance of desegregation and bring 
the school and community into closer contact. In addition 
to examining the role of leadership in desegregation, this 
analysis also explores the changes often made in educational 
systems in order to make them serve the needs of all 
students. Desegregation usually involves a major review of 
the educational process. Such a review is certainly 
valuable in itself in that it leads to additional training 
of teachers and staff, revised curricula and textbooks, new 
instructional techniques, and improved physical conditions 
at many schools. In such ways, the quality of education is 
improved to benefit both white and minority children. 

Another subject of concern to some is the technical or 
administrative feasibility of achieving desegregation. As 
the following section reveals, there are serious 
misconceptions about the role of pupil transportation in 
desegregation. The experiences of the school districts 
studied in connection with this report, however, make clear 
that the technical problems in achieving desegregation are 
far less formidable than previously believed. 

Another subject examined here is faculty desegregation. 
In addition to the need to end the discrimination inherent 



169 



in faculty segregation, minority administrators, faculty, 
and staff play a vital role in easing student adjustment to 
desegregation. Their understanding of the concerns of 
minority children is required at all levels of the 
educational structure, especially in view of the 
insensitivity which reduces the effectiveness of some white 
educators in desegregated schools. Such minority 
representation will strongly enhance the likelihood that 
school desegregation will be a positive experience for the 
entire community. 

An examination of the school desegregation experiences 
of many school districts must also include a look at the 
extent of desegregation within schools and classrooms in 
ostensibly desegregated school systems. A problem common to 
many desegregated districts is resegregation within the 
classroom that may result from various student assignment 
practices. These practices and the need for and use of 
alternatives in many schools are described. Similarly, the 
techniques which many school districts have used to ensure 
uninterrupted opportunities for participation in 
desegregated extracurricular activities are illustrated. 

Positive student attitudes clearly are important in 
assessing the success or failure of desegregation. The 
Commission has found in the past that desegregation often 

170 



leads to more positive interracial attitudes and 
understanding among students. The Commission's latest 
research reaffirms the fact that students, particularly 
whites, continue to be more supportive of desegregation and 
busing than their parents. 

Finally, the nature and scope of disciplinary problems 
in desegregated schools continues to be a subject about 
which there is much public misunderstanding. Many parents, 
minority and white, fear for their children's safety when 
threats or predictions of violence permeate the streets and 
schools prior to or during implementation of desegregation. 
In fact, there is far less racial conflict in desegregated 
schools than is commonly believed, and the scope of 
disruption in the schools, whatever its cause or nature, is 
often exaggerated. The problem of discrimination in 
disciplinary policy, however, is often acute, and this 
problem, not the myth of unrelieved turmoil and rampage, is 
the reality that must be dealt with for desegregation to be 
effective. As this discussion reveals, many school 
districts have provided human relations training for faculty 
and staff and have reviewed disciplinary codes and minority 
pupil suspension rates in order to ensvure that student 
disciplinary policy is firm but fair. 



171 



other factors also must be studied in assessing the 
national experience to date with school desegregation. For 
example, the increased degree of parental involvement in 
school affairs, as a direct result of the desegregation 
process, often helps to improve educational services in our 
public schools. Similarly, desegregation often leads to 
greater student involvement in such areas as a school's 
disciplinary policy and human relations programs. 

The purpose of school desegregation is to provide equal 
educational opportunity for all students, a right guaranteed 
by the 14th amendment. While most Americans accept this 
human right in principle, many question whether school 
desegregation is necessary to achieve it. The evidence in 
such communities as Hillsborough County, Florida, 
Minneapolis, and Berkeley, for example, where desegregation 
has been in effect for some time, is that, contrary to the 
view that desegregation would be achieved at the expense of 
the white majority, desegregation has brought about changes 
which benefit everyone. Far from lowering the quality of 
education as some predict, desegregation has actually 
contributed to its improvement in many instances. Far from 
heightening racial tension and conflict, desegregation has 
contributed to improved interracial understanding and 
relations in most schools. 

172 



This report makes clear that although minority parents, 
teachers, and administrators frequently encounter obstacles 
to effective desegregation, even in ostensibly desegregated 
districts, the minority community remains the major impetus 
for desegregation. Most firmly believe that desegregation 
is indeed worth the effort, and they do not want to return 
to the segregated schools of the past. The Commission has 
found similar attitudes among many white parents, students, 
and educators in desegregated school districts. 

School desegregation impacts at many different points 

in public education and community life. The experiences 

described here clearly indicate that, in the last analysis, 

whether that impact is generally beneficial or adverse 

depends in large measure upon the determination and the 

planning of school and community leaders. The Commission 

believes that the Nation's experience with school 

desegregation fully supports the conclusion of the principal 

at Little Rock's desegregated Central High School: 

...we are moving in the right direction. The 
Constitution says it's right, and the quality of 
[our] democracy demands it.... There are 
frustrations and temporary setbacks. . .[but ] we can 
have equity and quality. That's the goal, the 
principle. * 



173 



THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP 

The process of school desegregation is significantly 
affected by the support or opposition it receives from the 
local community's leadership. Across the Nation in the 
various school districts included in the Commission study, 
where officials and community leaders have given their 
support, the process of desegregating the schools has tended 
to go relatively smoothly. In these districts the community 
at large more readily accepted desegregation. Where civic 
leaders publicly oppose desegregation, however, they provide 
sanction to its opponents, who believe they have been given 
license to disobey the law and disrupt the community and its 
schools in protest. 

As early as 1968 the Commission's study of school 
desegregation in Virginia found that effective desegregation 
had occurred where school officials had taken the position 
that Federal law must be obeyed and that desegregation could 
be accomplished, 2 More recently, the commission has found 
further evidence to substantiate the importance of positive 
leadership in desegregation. 

In its national survey, the Commission found that 
superintendents' responses in 532 school districts which had 
desegregated within the last 10 years showed that the level 
of opposition among local leaders just prior to 

174 



inplementation of desegregation was far greater in districts 
which reported serious disruptions of the educational 
process. 3 Of 411 districts where superintendents reported no 
serious disruptions on the issue of school desegregation, 
superintendents said: 

• Business leaders were supportive or neutral 
in 65 percent. 

• Political leaders were supportive or neutral 
in 67 percent. 

• Religious leaders were supportive or neutral 
in 87 percent. 

Of 95 districts which reported serious disruptions: 

• Business leaders were supportive or neutral 
in 27 percent. 

• Political leaders were supportive or neutral 
in 30 percent. 

• Religious leaders were supportive or neutral 
in 66 percent. 

Superintendent and School Board 

Affirmative leadership by school board members and 
superintendents is a critical factor for acceptance and 
peaceful implementation of desegregation. Individuals 
interviewed in 23 of 29 school districts in which case 
studies were conducted said that the superintendent's 

175 



positive leadership had contributed to the smoothness with 
which desegregation was implemented. In 15 school 
districts, persons interviewed said the school board's 
support had a noticeable impact on the desegregation 
process. Support from superintendents and school boards 
included appointing human relations committees, making 
strong public statements in support of desegregation, and 
initiating activities or programs to facilitate 
desegregation. 

According to school officials in Hillsborough County, 
the school board's decision not to appeal the 1971 court 
decision but to make every effort to comply was the first 
step toward successful desegregation.* In anticipation of 
the court order, the superintendent began developing a 
desegregation plan. The Hillsborough County School Board, 
recognizing the importance of involving the total community, 
set up a 156-member community desegregation task force. 
Businessmen, military personnel, students, parents, 
religious leaders, the media, as well as antibusing groups 
were represented on the task force. As a result, 
desegregation in Hillsborough County was implemented without 
violence or disruption. 

In contrast, the Boston School Committee adamantly 
refused to take the affirmative steps necessary to 

176 



desegregate Boston's public schools successfully. In a 
report on desegregation in Boston the Commission concluded 
that, "the effect of the Boston School Committee's 
statements, policy, and inaction was to foster within the 
community outright resistance to school desegregation."* The 
school superintendent also provided a minimum of guidance to 
the Boston school department. * 

In Berkeley, Calfornia, which desegregated voluntarily 
in 1968, the board of education passed a resolution stating 
that desegregation was "absolutely their goal."^ Asked what 
she considered the single most important factor in 
desegregation in Berkeley, a former school board member 
said, "I think it was the total community involvement under 
the leadership of both the board and the superintendent."* 

Union Township, New Jersey, implemented an HEW-approved 
desegregation plan in 1969. Observers attribute its success 
to the school board's early unanimity, its ability to "stick 
to its guns," and the dedication and commitment of the 
superintendent of schools. Affirmative and determined 
leadership enabled the community to avoid most of the 
hysteria and blind resistance which troubled other school 
districts. 9 In Minneapolis, Minnesota, which desegregated in 
1973, many residents believe that desegregation has been 
successful because of the consistent, positive approach 

177 



taken by the school administration in informing and molding 

community support for the desegregation process, *<> 

In Prince George's County, Maryland, which desegregated 

in the middle of the 1972-73 school year, the school board 

resisted to the very end, causing community polarization and 

dissension. In his final decree. Judge Frank Kaufman 

stated: 

...the Prince George's County School Board has 
disregarded the mandates of the highest court of 
our land... the policy and practice apparently 
followed by a number of school board members of 
seeking at every stage and at every available 
moment, ever further delays, and of failing to 
exert affirmative leadership to effect required 
constitutional change, discourages further 
delay. . . . ** 

In Bogalusa, Louisiana, many school board members were 

opposed to any desegregation effort. Although the board 

directed the superintendent to develop a plan to comply with 

a court order, it made known its opposition and the fact 

that it was complying only because there was no alternative. 

A community representative cited the school board's attitude 

as most damaging to initial desegregation efforts because of 

its negative effect on the community.* 2 jn Greenville, 

Mississippi, on the other hand, leadership at all levels — 

school, community, business, and media — worked together to 

bring about desegregation in that community.*' 



178 



In Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, where court- 
ordered desegregation was implemented in 1970, the general 
view among those sympathetic to the plan is that the school 
board did not provide active support and there has been 
little support by leaders elsewhere in the city or county. 
To the extent the plan has worked, various individuals said, 
credit goes to the superintendent and his professional 
staff. In 1972 the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Community 
Relations Committee, after studying the causes of school 
disorders and community tensions, criticized the school 
board for its "interim" attitude and declared: 

...our first and firmest attention should be 
turned from discontent with courts. . , to our 
schools and the way in which they educate our 
children. The Committee believes that leadership 
from the board of education and from others — 
elected and private civic leaders alike — will 
cause this community's parents to reaffirm their 
belief in good education. »♦ 

Pontiac, Michigan, desegregated in 1971-72 amidst 

turmoil and violence — 10 school buses were bombed in the bus 

depot and buses carrying young children were attacked by 

mobs of adults. Community leaders in Pontiac criticized the 

board of education and top school administrators for their 

failure to exert affirmative leadership: 

The school board knew it was in the wrong, but 
refused to admit it, even after all court appeals 
had been exhausted; the board misled the public. 



179 



The community would have been more cooperative if 
the superintendent had said, "We are desegregating 
because it is the right thing to do for the 
children. "*5 

Political Leadership 

Generally, local elected officials, other than school 
board members, have no direct authority over the public 
school system. However, their public response to a 
desegregation plan can have a positive or negative effect in 
a community where there is controversy. Where public 
officials actively support the desegregation process, the 
community generally directs its attention toward making the 
process work. Even where political leaders have actually 
opposed the specifics of a court order, the Commission has 
found that if they take a position of "obedience to the 
law," the result is a positive contribution to the 
desegregation process. This was true in a number of 
districts, including Springfield, Massachusetts; Newport 
News, Virginia; and Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Minoru Yasui, executive director of the Denver 

Commission on Community Relations, said: 

I think probably the greatest strength has been 
that in the City and County of Denver, both the 
administration and even those who oppose the 
specific court order have felt that obedience to 
the law is a very important and integral part of 
the community. I believe the city administration 
has always backed this kind of a stand, that if 



180 



there is a law on the books, it should be obeyed 
by law-abiding citizens.** 

Although no elected city officials in Denver made 
public statements in support of school desegregation, the 
mayor directed the Denver Commission on Community Relations 
to "be involved in whatever was necessary to alleviate the 
tensions caused by school desegregation."*^ 

In Boston the Commission found that public statements 

of the mayor during the school desegregation crisis confused 

the public and constituted a disservice to the rule of 

law. »* Some of Mayor White's public statements included the 

following: 

We are all faced with the unpleasant task of 
implementing a court order. 

Compliance with law does not require acceptance of 
it; tolerance does not require endorsement of law. 

People who would boycott schools are asked to 
weigh the decision carefully, but it is their 
decision to make. Parents should attend open 
houses at schools before making final decision to 
send or not send students to school.*' 

Local and State politicans in Maryland as well as the 

district's Member of Congress made public statements on the 

anarchy and chaos that would accompany school desegregation 

in Prince George's County. 20 No leadership was exerted by 

most top county or State officials in behalf of compliance 



181 



with the court order, and the community divided on the issue 
of desegregation. 2 1 

In contrast, officials in Tampa and Hillsborough County 
took a neutral position on school desegregation and credited 
the school board with the successful iirplementation of 
desegregation. Richard Greco, former mayor, said: "It was 
their responsibility. It was a tough problem. They got in 
there and did their job and I think that you would have to 
say that the city, the county, and everyone else was 
somewhat neutral. . .because it wasn't our realm of 
responsibility. "2 2 Local officials agreed that the political 
community refrained from making the desegregation issue a 
political football. 

In Louisville the desegregation issue did become a 

political football. The Governor of Kentucky, the mayor of 

Louisville, and the Jefferson County judge testified against 

court- ordered desegregation during the Senate Judiciary 

Committee hearings prior to the 197 5 election. In the wake 

of violence in Louisville, an editorial in The State Journal 

addressed the leadership problem: 

Both the Governor and Jefferson Coxinty Judge Todd 
Hollenbach, while strongly stating their 
intentions to restore order in the city, appeared 
determined to let everyone know how much they 
oppose court-ordered busing... if the Governor 
keeps saying how bad busing is, throwing a brick 



182 



at a police car can be seen by emotion- laden minds 
as doing the Governor's business. 23 

The Jefferson County school system is about to enter 
its second year of desegregation. Asked if he has taken 
steps to bring the community together for better 
implementation of the court order. County Judge Louis J. 
Hollenbach testified that he and Mayor Harvey Sloane have 
appeared before many groups to focus attention on 
alternatives to busing and have submitted these alternatives 
to the school board. The alternatives are not within the 
scope of the existing court order. 2* Thus, it appears that 
the chief executives of Louisville and Jefferson County will 
continue to undermine the letter and the spirit of the law 
with respect to school desegregation in the Louisville 
community. 
Law Enforcement 

Law enforcement agencies, as part of local government, 
often reflect the position of local officials. 
Consequently, if elected officials are committed to peaceful 
implementation of desegregation, law enforcement agencies 
respond accordingly. 

Following the Denver court order in the spring of 1974, 
the police department began contingency planning for the 
possibility of violence or disorder. Police officials met 



183 



with school officials to discuss potential problems during 

the remainder of the school year and in the fall. The chief 

of police testified: 

...we felt that at one of our high schools we 
might have a problem. .. .We enabled the 
of ficers. . .to go to that school... to determine if 
there were any possibilities. We did have alert 
circumstances, not uniform cars, in the area, but 
available with helicopter surveillance. . .no 
problems came out. 2s 

The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department and the 
Tampa Police Department were involved in a workshop 
sponsored by the school administration to "let us in law 
enforcement know what the plan was to be." Sheriff Malcolm 
Beard said, "We were prepared for any problon that might 
arise.. ..we had no problems. "2* Both the sheriff and the 
chief of police said their departments maintained a very low 
profile although they were well prepared: "We had some 
areas where we thought... a problem might occur, and we had 
manpower there, but they were not conspicuous. They were 
not on the scene... but they were available. "z^ 

Law enforcement decisions made by Boston officials 
clearly influenced the course of events. 28 Although the 
police had prior information that resistance to 
desegregation would be massive in certain areas of the city, 
they neglected to provide adequate police presence in those 
areas. As a result, massive civil disorder occurred. 



184 



leading the mayor to announce shortly after the opening of 

school that the city could not maintain public safety. 

With tension at a peak and the potential for violence 

running high, Memphis schools opened in 1972-73 on a 

desegregated basis with no serious incidents or arrests. 29 

This occurred despite opposition by the mayor and the city 

council and a national antibusing rally in Memphis the 

weekend before school opened. The director of police made 

it clear that the police would enforce the court order: 

When the date for busing arrived, we wanted it 
done in a normal environment — no force, no strong- 
arm tactics, no sea of uniforms. We were totally 
mobilized and ready, but we were in the 
background, not in the schools or on the 
buses.... We were candid about what we would do, 
but we didn't want anybody but the school people 
involved in the actual movement of children. I 
know we've got some men with deep racial bias, but 
a real professional has to subordinate his 
personal feeling to his duty.^o 

Business, Religious, and Orgeuiizational Leadership 

In many school districts affirmative leadership by 
members of business, religious, and social service 
organizations has contributed immeasurably to community 
acceptance of desegregation. 

The Chamber of Commerce in Memphis made peaceful 
implementation of the court order its highest priority and 
helped form IMPACT — Involved Memphis Parents Assisting 
Children and Teachers. It also used its own public 

185 



relations firm to enlist support. The executive director of 

the chamber said, "It had to be done. We don't want this 

town to go down the drain."'* One community leader said of 

the leadership coalition of the chamber, the school system, 

the black community, and IMPACT: 

When a city's power structure makes up its mind to 
face up to an issue like desegregation, it can do 
it — and do it in an impressive and encouraging 
way. Even though officials of the local. State 
and Federal governments did all they could to stop 
busing, there were enough people here who wanted 
to do the right thing and they did it... and the 
result was a victory for Memphis. 32 

The Greater Tampa Chamber of commerce endorsed 
desegregation of the schools. Its executive vice president 
said, "If the chamber endorses it... we represent about 4,000 
business firms and individuals — I think it has a good bit to 
do with how the community responds."" 

In Greenville, Mississippi, the business leadership 
reportedly raised $10,000 from private sources for a 
professional public relations firm to publicize school 
desegregation. '♦ 

On the other hand, the Louisville Chamber of Commerce 
has moved from a public position of support for the peaceful 
implementation of court-ordered desegregation to one of 
opposition to court-ordered busing.'* The reversal, 
precipitated by community opposition and intimidation of 



186 



small businesses by antibusing elements, fueled the 
discontent and disobedience. 

There was considerable support for school desegregation 
from the Denver clergy. Ecumenical prayer services were 
held, and the Council of Churches and its Clergy Committee 
for Reconciliation spoke out in favor of peaceful 
inplementation of the plan. Both the United Methodist 
Church and the Roman Catholic Church officially communicated 
their support for school desegregation to their clergy. '* In 
addition, the Roman Catholic Church in Denver, as well as in 
Louisville, Tampa, Boston, and other communities, issued 
directives forbidding the use of Catholic schools as a haven 
for whites trying to avoid desegregation. 3 7 

A coalition of 49 Denver community organizations, PLUS 
(People Let's Unite for Schools), worked to involve the 
entire community in the desegregation process. 
The Media 

Media coverage of school desegregation has an enormous 
impact upon local and national opinions and perceptions. 
Consequently, many school districts have attempted to work 
closely with the news media. In Denver the court-appointed 
monitoring committee met with media executives to ask their 
cooperation in presenting the positive side of 
desegregation. A committee member said: 

187 



...I think that both of the newspapers have, in 
general, done a good job of this.... They have 
reported the facts, they have traced down rumors 
before putting them on the front page.^a 

Local newspapers in Memphis reportedly did a 
"superlative" job of covering school desegregation and took 
editorial positions favoring peaceful implementation of the 
court order. 39 Many people felt, however, that national 
coverage was misleading and had a negative effect on the 
city.*o In Corpus Christi, Texas, the local media were 
strong advocates of desegregation, in particular, the Corpus 
Christi Caller - Times which won a statewide Associated Press 
award. ♦» 

The Boston Community Media Council (BCMC) , a biracial 

organization of print and broadcast news management 

personnel, made a constructive effort to plan the local 

media's role during Phase I of Boston's desegregation 

effort.* 2 The council held training sessions: 

The briefings at times emphasized the obvious: the 
importance of checking out rumors and tips; the 
need to be inconspicuous and to stand back from 
any outbreaks to avoid the appearance of 
encouraging them. The television people weighed 
the use of film reports... to provide an overall 
sense of perspective. . .the newspaper people 
stressed the importance of avoiding code words or 
inflammatory descriptions ("cruel," "savage," or 
"brutal") in their copy.*^ 



188 



The Boston Globe was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1975 
for its coverage of the school desegregation crisis. The 
local media later abandoned the BCMC "plan" and each pursued 
an independent course of action. National media coverage, 
particularly of incidents of violence during the fall of 
197U, engendered widespread feeling in Boston that reporting 
had been sensationalized and thereby distorted. ♦♦ 

According to community leaders in Dorchester County, 
Maryland, the media coverage of desegregation was negative 
and served to exacerbate the problems. In 1970 the 
superintendent, who was opposed to desegregation, wrote to 
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
criticizing Dorchester News stories as unethical.*' The 
Delta Democrat Times in Greenville, Mississippi, was praised 
for keeping the community informed and for its positive 
response to desegregation.** 

The media in Louisville was severely criticized by some 

community leaders. Dr. Lois Cronholm, director of the 

Louisville-Jefferson County Human Relations Commission, 

said: 

I think the news media produced a picture in this 
community that the great majority of the people, 
90 percent or more... were opposed to busing. It 
became the expectation for most of our citizens to 
oppose busing because they really believed that 
not to oppose busing would have meant to have gone 
against what appeared to be the overwhelming moral 



189 



current of opinion. From this standpoint I would 
criticize the news media.*'' 

Galen Martin, director of the Kentucky Commission on 

Human Relations, testified that the media misled the 

community through its overuse of slogans and its 

"glamorization of the hate group leaders." He said: 

We have had more than 12 court orders for 
desegregation. But this is the first time... that 
the media have ever described it as court-ordered 
forced busing across racial lines to achieve 
balance. . . .♦» 

There was also testimony that the media had failed in 

its responsibility to inform the public on the reasons for 

desegregation: 

[It] failed to tell white people about the 
brutality of segregation, how bad the schools were 
so that they see a little busing is better than 
the defects of segregation.*' 

Although the leading newspapers endorsed busing for 

desegregation and advocated peaceful implementation, a 

leading television station editorialized for a 

constitutional amendment or other alternatives to busing. 

The Courier - Journal printed an editorial on the 

responsibility of the media during desegregation: 

The most sensitive issue the news media in this 
community has had to handle in many, many years is 
that of school desegregation. ... 

On this issue we all bear an extra burden of 
accuracy — to publish or broadcast facts rather 
than unsubstantiated rumor. The way the community 



190 



copes with integration this fall may well reflect 
the responsibility with which news organizations 
have kept people informed. Unreliable reporting 
damages the community. ... 'o 

The Courier Journa 1 and WHAS-TV in Louisville won 

national Sigma Delta Chi awards for their coverage of 

desegregation. 

In summary, where public and private leaders publicly 
supported the peaceful implementation of school 
desegregation, whether court-ordered or voluntary and 
irrespective of the mechanics used, the process tended to 
proceed smoothly and more effectively than in districts 
where such support was lacking. Affirmative leadership is 
crucial to the achievement of school desegregation in a 
community. Such leadership is most important in school 
districts where there is opposition because undisciplined 
opposition can lead to community disruption and violence. 
In periods immediately before and after implementation of 
desegregation, when apprehension is often widespread, local 
leaders must reassure the community that desegregation can 
and will be accomplished peacefully and successfully, 
without commitment from the top, the task of desegregating 
is made more difficult. 
PREPARATION OF THE COMMUNITY 

Many school districts undertake a variety of activities 
to involve and educate the community, particularly parents, 
prior to school desegregation. The purpose is to engender 
acceptance and support for school desegregation and create 



an atmosphere of cooperation and comradeship between school 
and community. 

Leadership for these activities may come from the 
school administration, 5 1 from community organizations, sz or 
from principals of individual schools. S3 Often with the 
assistance of local parent teacher organizations, individual 
schools have been able to desegregate peacefully and 
smoothly, even when they are part of a school system 
otherwise marked by disruptions. s* 

A vital part of these activities is to keep the 
community thoroughly informed. A Greenville, Mississippi, 
school administrator reported that the school district had 
sponsored a television program explaining the desegregation 
plan so there would be "no surprises."" Information was 
notably absent in Phase I of the Boston school desegregation 
process.'* This contributed to "confusion, duplication of 
effort, and inaction."'^ 
Involving the Community 

Community preparation has been handled in several ways 
and at different stages of the school desegregation process. 
In Hillsborough County (Tampa) , the school administration 
sought citizen involvement in the initial development of the 
plan: 



192 



It was our feeling at that time since the schools 
belong to the people that the people should help 
resolve the problems. So it was part of the 
format or strategy for coming up with the plan to 
get some community involvement. s a 

Immediately following the 1971 court order, s' school 
administrators organized a 156-member citizens' committee, 
the Hillsborough County Citizens Desegregation Committee, 
which included black and white leaders and opponents as well 
as advocates of school desegregation. This committee 
reviewed plans and options that had been developed by 20 
school administrators and 5 lay persons under the direction 
of E.L, Bing, who is now assistant school superintendent for 
supportive services. All meetings of the committee were 
open, and newspaper and radio advertisements strongly urged 
the public to attend. *o The press was present at all 
sessions and reported on all the proceedings. Broad 
involvement of the community and the media was cited by 
school administrators and private citizens as a major factor 
in the acceptance of school desegregation in Tampa. *» 
Because a large segment of the community helped develop the 
plan, they had an investment in its outcome. 

In other places, school administrations have not 
directly involved the community in the development of a 
plan, but have provided opportunities for participation at 



193 



strategic points in the desegregation process and have 
sought to keep the community informed. 

In Minneapolis, prior to desegregation, the board of 
education held several open meetings and a public hearing to 
explain its plan. After adoption, the board held nearly 100 
meetings to provide further explanation. * 2 By the time 
implementation began, the community had been assured that 
desegregation would be educationally beneficial.* 3 

Community education was a basic component of the school 
desegregation plan developed in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Large 
public hearings were held for presentation of the plan and 
for citizen input.** The plan also included an information 
center staffed by community volunteers. *s 
Information and Rumor Control Centers 

Information and rumor control centers have been 
established by numerous school systems in the process of 
desegregating.** Such centers generally begin operating a 
few months before school desegregation begins and continue 
for the first year or two of school desegregation.*'' 
Dependent mostly on the telephone, these centers have been 
effective tools for keeping the community informed and 
providing a readily accessible line of communication. 
Parents have been able to learn about curriculum changes, 
school hours, and bus routes and to clarify mimors* School 

194 



administrators often use community volunteers, especially 

parents, to staff the centers. Private citizens have proved 

to be highly credible in relaying first-hand information to 

other citizens. *8 

In Tampa, rumors were investigated by human relations 

counselors in the schools and the results were reported back 

to callers. 6' Charles Vacher, former supervisor of the Tampa 

rumor control center, emphasized its importance: 

I think personally, . .that a desegregation process 
couldn't occur without it. You just have to sit 
and answer call after call from the concerned 
people....! feel certain that it was a wonderful 
asset to Hillsborough County at that time.^o 

Mr. Vacher said that the center received 200 to 300 

telephone calls a day from the preregistration period 

through the first few weeks of school.^* 

A similar center operated during the early stages of 

desegregation in Berkeley, California: 

...[The] rumor clinic was to function for the 
community, to trace down every rumor that had to 
do with fears of desegregation. .. .[T]his rumor 
clinic was a catalyst to sort out the fears that 
had been openly expressed at many of the hearings 
.that we had prior to adoption of the plan.''^ 

In Boston, a black community organization. Freedom 

House Institute on Schools and Education, was "instrumental 

in setting up a [neighborhood] Rumor Control and Information 

Center, which was directly hooked into the Boston School 



155 



Department and also to the Information Center located in 
City Hall. "7 3 Staffed by volunteers from various community 
agencies, the center was established becuse of rumors of 
violence and hostile receptions of black children at their 
"new" schools. 7* 
Local School Activities 

In addition to communitywide preparations, some school 
districts have provided parents with opportunities to become 
familiar with specific aspects of desegregation. ^s Parents 
were able to visit their child^s "new" school, 7« experience 
a bus ride, 7 7 meet parents of transferring students, 7a and 
meet school personnel. 7 9 other activities have included ice 
cream socials, picnics, coffee klatches, door-to-door home 
visits, and sensitivity sessions. Community organizations 
often give support and assistance to these endeavors. 

In Springfield, Massachusetts, the Bi-Racial Quality 
Integrated Education Committee helped with orientation 
programs at the "sending" and "receiving" schools. These 
programs generally consisted of building tours, explanation 
of curriculum, and discussion of parental concerns and 
questions. 80 In Louisville individual schools held 
orientation nights. Teachers were present to talk to 
parents and students about the curriculum and to allay fears 
and anxieties. «i Nancy Jordan, a Denver parent, stressed the 

196 



importance of this type of parent orientation: "For any 
other school district that plans to desegregate, I think 
this is absolutely crucial to get the parents together with 
the people who are going to be dealing with their 
children. "82 

Some school districts have responded to anxieties about 
desegregation by integrating parents into school operations. 
In Charlotte, North Carolina, the parent teacher association 
obtained Federal funds to hire a coordinator who solicited 
assistance from parents in tutorial positions. *3 By working 
in the schools, parents were able to see first hand that 
school desegregation was proceeding smoothly and their 
children were safe.'* Parent volunteers in many school 
districts have continued to provide assistance during the 
school year in various paraprofessional and volunteer 
positions. "s 

A Boston parent, Jane Margulis, commented at the 

Commission hearing: 

...I was born and brought up in Boston, but had 
very little to do with black people all my life; 
had always gone to segregated schools. And it was 
very frightening for me to think that I would be 
putting them on a bus and [sending them] to the 
black community which I knew nothing about.... 

Well, I thought I had to make myself comfortable 
in order to make them feel comfortable about the 
change. The first thing I did was start working 
in my middle daughter's school.... ■• 



197 



Although Boston's central school administration did not 
provide leadership to prepare the community or parents for 
school desegregation, some individual school principals did 
involve their communities. They were able to win parents' 
acceptance and achieve integration in a way that made a 
significant contribution to the educational growth and 
development of their students.""' 
Leadership from Community Organizations 

Although data collected by the Commission suggest that 
in most instances school superintendents and their staffs 
provided the strongest leadership in preparing communities 
for school desegregation, community organizations have also 
played positive roles in many school districts. •• The 
Memphis Chamber of Commerce was Instrumental in forming an 
organization. Involved Memphis Parents Assisting Children 
and Teachers (IMPACT) , which sponsored a telephone rumor 
control system, newspaper and television advertisements 
supporting school desegregation, a speakers bureau, 
neighborhood meetings, and factsheets explaining the 
desegregation plan."' In Denver, two organizations. People 
Let's Unite for Schools (PLUS) and the Community Education 
Council (CEC) , engaged in a variety of activities to Involve 
and inform the community. 'o PLUS, a coalition of more than 
fiO organizations, operated a rumor control clinic; created a 

198 



public education task force which developed a pamphlet 
explaining the court order' * and the history of the case; 
established a speaker's bureau staffed by persons 
knowledgeable about the court order; and provided a forum 
for communication between parents, students, and teachers of 
the sending and receiving schools. ' 2 

Denver's Community Education Council, established by 
the court, consists of a cross-section of prominent citizens 
who coordinated the actions of a number of agencies involved 
in desegregation. The council also provided the community 
with factual information about the court order and served as 
a communication channel between the community and the 
schools. Council members continue to monitor implementation 
of the order. 9 3 
Ongoing Involvement 

While the high level of communication established 
between the school and community during the early stages of 
desegregation tends to decrease after the school 
desegregation plan is implemented, many school districts 
continue to sponsor community-school activities throughout 
the first few years. Parent volunteers in some school 
districts have become a part of regular school operations, 
and local community organizations have continued to sponsor 
human relations activities. '♦ Through such programs parental 

199 



involvement in school districts often increased, bringing 

the home and the school in closer contact. 

William Choker, a Denver parent, commented at the 

Commission's hearing: 

The level of parent involvement has certainly 
improved since integration. . .was implemented. It 
has tripled or quadrupled. . .resulting in, I think, 
a very excellent organization that, in my opinion, 
has done a tremendous job, not only in the Manual 
[High School] community, but extending as far as 
the southwest and southeast sections of the 
city. 9 5 

At the Tampa hearing, elementary school principal Dora 

Reader also spoke of the increase in parent participation: 

...before integration I had such a hard time 
getting PTA going and getting parent 
involvement. ... 

We do have more parent participation than we have 
ever had. Our teachers don't have to worry about 
the class parties and all of the field trips and 
all the other things that parents get involved 
in.. . .9* 

Some school districts have more formal ongoing vehicles 

for community involvement which are often created by court 

orders. In Louisville, a citizens' advisory committee was 

established by the school administration to provide a forum 

for expression of problems, concerns, and suggestions 

pertaining to school desegregation. '"^ However, the 

effectiveness of the committee has been questioned by 

community leaders because it has no real authority. A 



200 



hearing witness stated that he felt an "essential 
ingredient" for such a committee was a "formal charge from 
the Federal court" with specific responsibilities. '^ j^ 
Denver, as previously mentioned, the court-created Community 
Education Council is responsible for continuous monitoring 
of the school desegregation process. This results in 
regular observation of the school environment by community 
volunteers." The Bi-Racial Advisory Committee to the 
Hillsborough County School Board also provides a line of 
communication between the community and the school board. loo 
Although the responsibilities of these court-mandated 
committees often have needed Clarif ication, *o» they have 
provided the "community" with an effective means of 
communication and helped maintain community involvement in 
the ongoing school desegregation process. 

With planning and ingenuity, school administrators have 
engendered community support and acceptance of school 
desegregation and brought the community, home, and school in 
closer contact. 



201 



RESTRUCTURING OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

An essential part of desegregation is the restructuring 
of school districts, including changes in school attendance 
zones and grade levels. This restructuring is accomplished 
in a number of ways which include establishing satellite 
attendance areas, pairing and clustering, grade-locking, 
establishing magnet schools, building new schools, and 
closing schools. » 02 

Restructuring often requires additional busing of 
students, but the increase is substantially less than is 
popularly believed. Nationally, slightly more than 50 
percent of all school children are bused to school, and of 
this percentage less than 7 percent are bused for the 
purpose of school desegregation. *03 jn fact, of the total 
number of children attending public school, only 3.6 percent 
are bused for school desegregation purposes. During the 
1973-7U school year, $57 billion was spent for public 
education, and $1,858 billion of that total was spent for 
student transportation. Only $129 million of these 
transportation funds were used to achieve desegregation. * 04 

Indeed, busing is not a new phenomenon in American 
education. As early as 1869, the State of Massachusetts 
enacted the first pupil transportation law.ios Today US 
States provide student transportation, and 15 States provide 

202 



it to private schools at public expense, »<>• The use of pupil 
transportation was predicated upon providing educational 
opportunities not available at the neighborhood school, 
combined with a concern for safety. »o^ While modern 
opponents of busing often cite safety as an argument against 
it, the data show that "students walking to school are three 
times more likely to be involved in an accident than those 
going to school by bus."»oe 

On the average, 30 percent of the students in 
desegregated school districts, surveyed in the Commission's 
national study, were reassigned at the time of school 
desegregation. However, the average percentage of minority 
students bused increased from U6.98 percent to 55.98 
percent. The average percentage of majority students bused 
increased from 50.13 percent to 53.28 percent, or about 3 
percent. »09 

Analysis of the 29 case studies reveals that the number 
of students bused increased in 25, decreased in 1, and 
remained the same in 3. Furthermore, in 9 of the 25 
districts, the increase was less than 12 percent and in none 
was the increase over 50 percent. i*o The burden of busing in 
21 of the districts is disproportionately borne by minority 
students, in 3 by majority students, and in 5 is evenly 
balanced. »*» in addition, the percentage of the budget spent 

203 



on busing increased less than 2 percent in the majority of 
the school districts and decreased in two. »*2 

In Minneapolis, Minnesota, the school desegregation 
plan — which included wider attendance zones, clustering and 
pairing, and a pilot program of learning centers similar to 
magnet schools — kept busing to a minimum and balanced the 
proportion bused between minority and majority students.**' 
The average bus ride before and after school desegregation 
was less than 20 minutes.*** Roughly half of the district's 
5'»,000 pupils are bused and of these 27,000, 11,000 are 
bused for desegregation purposes. **» School desegregation in 
Ossining, New York, was accomplished by rezoning attendance 
areas and closing an elementary school in deteriorated 
condition.*** The average bus ride remained approximately 30 
minutes and only an additional 6,6 percent of the students 
are bused. *i^ There was an increase of only 1 percent of 
students bused in Erie, Pennsylvania, and the percentage of 
the budget used for busing remained the same, 2.3 
percent.*** The desegregation plan included closing three 
old school buildings, pairing, and rezoning attendance 
lines,**' Similarly, in Ogden, Utah, school desegregation 
did not increase the number of students bused (less than 1 
percent) , or the percentage of the budget spent on busing 
(less than 1 percent). *2o The voluntary desegregation plan 

204 



included consolidating five elementary schools into two new 

facilities and redrawing boundary lines for both elementary 

and junior high schools. 121 

In Hillsborough County, Florida, after numerous 

desegregation plans were used which included selective 

pairing and open enrollment, the school board adopted a plan 

which encompassed satellite attendance zones, clustering, 

and grade-locking. 122 Sixth and seventh grade centers were 

established in the formerly black schools, and white 

students at those grade levels are bused during the 2 

years. »2 3 Black students are bused to formerly white schools 

for grades 1 through 5 and 8 through 12.»24 as a result of 

this desegregation plan, 125 new buses were purchased and 

the State provided approximately 60 percent of the operating 

budget for transportation. » 25 of 52,785 students transported 

the year following implementation of the plan, 38 percent 

were bused for school desegregation purposes. » 26 a parent at 

the Tampa hearing responded to a question about her child 

being bused to school each day: 

I have no serious objection to it, personally. It 
has not caused a hardship in our family. Perhaps 
I would feel differently about it if what he got 
at the end of the line was not so good. But he 
does get a good deal at the end of the line.i*^ 

In most school districts, desegregation plans are 

developed for the purpose of providing equal educational 



205 



opportunity for all students. Restructuring of schools and 
the busing involved are merely means to that end. It is not 
the busing, it is the education at the end of the ride that 
is important. 
DESEGREGATED SCHOOLS AND QUALITY OF EDUCATION 

Desegregation is the means through which children of 
all races and ethnic backgrounds are provided equal 
educational opportunity. Only in learning together as 
equals, sharing knowledge and experiences, can children hope 
to develop the cultural values which will prepare them to be 
fully contributing members of society. At the Commission's 
hearing in Louisville, a student explained: 
"[Desegregation] let us come together. . .to learn about 
things we would have to deal with in society. ...A person's 
feelings are not in the textbook. "* 28 

The Supreme Court of the United States in the Brown 
decision addressed the intangible qualities that only 
desegregated schooling provides. Although Brown did not 
require improvements in curricular offerings, information 
available to the Commission indicates that many 
desegregating school districts in seeking to provide equal 
educational opportunity often simultaneously reevaluate 
their educational programs and services and as a result 



206 



improve them. The superintendent of schools in Williamsburg 

County, South Carolina, explained: 

It would have been a mistake to have desegregated 
the schools without making other basic changes in 
the educational programs at the same time. We 
could see that many changes needed to take 
place.... It was a most opportune time to make 
changes. Desegregation was unavoidable; the law 
had to be complied with. We complied — and at the 
same time we turned our attention to. ..the 
individual child. *29 

The following section examines the changes in 
educational programs and services made by desegregated 
school districts. These include curriculum (multicultural 
and bilingual education, special programs, and magnet 
schools) , preparation of the staff, and school facilities 
and supplies. 
The Quality of Curriculum 

Faced with the need to provide instruction to students 
of a variety of backgrounds, interests, and skills, many 
desegregated schools have begun to make the curriculum more 
responsive to a broad range of academic and emotional needs. 
The Commission heard testimony that teachers have become 
more sensitive to the kind of instruction that ensures 
student interest and academic success, *3o that teachers' 
expectations of minority students tend to increase, * 3* that 
the academic performance of minority students generally 



207 



improves, and that students are often more motivated and 
thus attend school more regularly. *32 

Educational research is inconclusive as to the effects 
of desegregation on achievement test scores of minority and 
majority students. »33 Research suggests, however, that 
improved achievement scores are more a function of the 
educational process than a function of the racial 
composition of the school.* 3* The experience of 
Williamsburg, South Carolina, is an excellent example. The 
school system, with a majority black and low-income student 
enrollment, has dramatically improved achievement scores, 
reduced dropout rates, and increased the percentage of 
students seeking higher education after desegregation when 
changes were made in every area affecting the curriculum. 
The school system introduced an ungraded, individualized, 
sequential plan for the development of basic skills; added 
courses in black history and literature; maintained the 
number of minority teachers at a level proportionate to 
minority student enrollment; provided staff training in 
human relations; and took steps to ensure that disciplinary 
treatment is administered equitably. » 3* 

The Berkeley Unified School District provides another 
example. Achievement scores of both majority and minority 
students improved after desegregation. The director of 



208 



research and evaluation attributed this to desegregation and 

the ensuing improvements in educational services and 

programs. *36 

A curriculum that reflects various cultural and racial 

backgrounds is essential to desegregated education. A 

school board member in Minneapolis stated: 

...desegregation has a great effect on the quality 
of education. Because I think we are opening 
doors to our children today. .. speaking about my 
culture and background [which] they never knew 
about... they [learn] about all cultures. . .all 
major contributions. . .that one race or one 
individual nationality is not superior or inferior 
to another. . . *3^ 

A school administrator in Berkeley agreed: 

...the intent is to prepare youngsters to be 
effective members of society, and one of the kinds 
of skills that they can acquire in a desegregated 
system is a knowledge and an awareness of the 
differences that exist among youngsters and 
hopefully gain a respect for those differences and 
acceptance of them....i38 

Many school districts have added ethnic studies and 

multicultural courses to the curriculum* 3 9 and have begun 

using textbooks which reflect the contributions of all 

groups. For example, a teacher in Minneapolis stated, "I 

think. ..we have made a great amount of effort to make our 

material multiethnic and nonsexist. "»*o Furthermore, 

teachers on their own initiative have incorporated the 



209 



cultures and histories of different racial and ethnic groups 
into their classroom presentations. »♦» 

Part of this general trend towards multicultural 
education is the increased use of bilingual-bicultural 
education, an indication that school districts are becoming 
more responsive to the needs of language-minority children. 
Boston offers programs for a variety of different language 
groups, 1*2 Tampa for Spanish-speaking students, »*3 and 
Louisville for Vietnamese-speaking students. »♦♦ Denver, 
which has a large Mexican American student population, 
instituted bilingual-bicultural programs in 7 schools the 
first year of desegregation and extended them to 15 schools 
the following year,»*' 

Although these programs have not necessarily been 
instituted as a part of the desegregation process, they are 
recognized by educators as prerequisite to providing equal 
educational opportunity for language-minority children. *♦• 

A school board member in Berkeley explained: 

I think that every school district in the country 
[with] non- English- speaking students has to 
establish some sort of bilingual program that will 
allow those students not to fall behind simply 
because of the lack of mastery of the language.... 
Simply desegregating wasn't enough, [the Chicano 
students] needed an opportunity in a bilingual- 
bicultural setting, not only allowing [them]... to 
appreciate and accept their culture and their way 
of life, but allowing others to. ..gain a respect 
for that kind of situation. ... »*^ 



210 



Bilingual-bicultural programs typically include both 
language-minority and English-speaking children. Language- 
minority children are given a real opportunity to learn 
since they are taught basic subject matter in the language 
they know best, and at the same time they acquire 
proficiency in English as a second language. Native 
English-speaking children in these programs are given an 
opportunity to learn another language and experience a 
different culture. **8 

Many desegregated schools offer students a wider choice 
of studies than was offered in segregated schools. School 
administrators attempt to ensure that courses offered in a 
student's former school are offered in the new school. i*9 
For example, in Tampa majority-black schools offered black 
history. Since desegregation, black history has been made 
available in all schools, to white as well as black 
students. »5o In Denver, instead of duplicating advanced 
academic and vocational courses that were offered in two 
high schools. East and Manual, a complex was formed. 
Although each school now has desegregated student bodies, 
students are encouraged to take courses in both schools.* si 

As a result of desegregation, school districts have 
implemented a variety of programs designed to improve basic 
skills such as reading and mathematics. These programs have 

211 



benefitted both minority and majority children achieving 
below their potential. Many desegregated school districts 
have also attempted to identify gifted students and provide 
programs that fully develop their talents and abilities. 
The availability of Federal money under the Emergency School 
Aid Act, established to provide financial assistance for 
special needs incident to the elimination of minority 
segregation, 15 2 has provided the impetus for many of these 
programs. 

In planning for desegregation, the Prince George's 
County, Maryland, School District received Federal aid under 
ESAA to improve reading achievement and to identify gifted 
students from minority groups. isa The school district 
provided a reading supervisor and staff of reading teachers 
for different geographical areas, and 20 "floating faculty" 
members were assigned to work with 20 elementary schools. A 
student tutorial service was expanded to include 20 junior 
high schools, 1,620 student tutors, and a, 860 children. 
Workshops were conducted over the summer to prepare reading 
teachers for elementary and secondary schools.*'* 

Even where Federal funds are lacking, many individual 
schools in the process of desegregation have developed 
programs on their own initiative to help children achieving 



212 



below their potential. The vice principal of Merrill Junior 

High School in Denver described their efforts: 

...about 25 teachers came and received credit for 
[remedial reading training]. .. .We. .. started a core 
program for children who are not special education 
youngsters but have great problems with reading, 
with academics, with self-image. .. .Our very top 
teachers volunteered to teach. . .these 
youngsters. .. .This has helped a great deal.i^s 

Magnet schools, which offer specialized curricula and 
teaching, are often used to attract students to desegregated 
schools. 156 School districts use magnet schools as testing 
grounds for innovative curricula and as a means for 
providing students alternative programs in truly integrated 
settings. These schools typically require specific racial 
percentages which may parallel racial composition 
districtwide or reflect equal distribution for each racial 
and ethnic group. 

When an open enrollment policy in Louisville, Kentucky, 
was failing to desegregate schools, the Brown School, a 
magnet school which stipulated a 50 percent black and white 
enrollment, had long waiting lists. »*^ The school offers a 
progressive curriculum and attracts white and black parents 
who want their children to experience learning in an open 
classroom and integrated environment. iss since the merger 
of the Jefferson County and Louisville school systems, two 
additional "alternative" magnet schools have been developed 



213 



which also require 50 percent black and 50 percent white 
enrollment. Scheduled to open in the fall of 1976 and known 
as traditional schools because of the content and approach 
of the curriculum offered, they already have waiting 
lists. »59 

In Boston, Phase II of the desegregation order called 
for the creation of 22 magnet schools offering specialized 
and distinctive programs. i^o Institutions of higher 
learning, the business community, labor organizations, and 
creative arts groups have committed themselves to assist 
with the development of curricula for the magnet schools as 
well as other schools in the district. Businesses have been 
paired with specific schools to provide a more practical 
business orientation to academic programs, and labor 
organizations have begun developing occupational, 
vocational, technical, and trade programs.*** The 
effectiveness of this liaison is yet to be determined since 
Phase II only began in the fall of 1975. However, the roles 
have been defined and program development is underway. **2 

The Tulsa, Oklahoma, school district reported that the 
greatest effect of desegregation was improvement of the 
curriculum. 1*3 Tj^g district established two magnet schools 
offering innovative curricula. Washington High School 
offers a variety of courses including: repertory theater. 



214 



stage show ensembler mass media, TV and film direction, 
business law, speed reading, Chinese I and II, building 
construction, elementary probability and statistics, music 
composition, electronics, and archaeology. »•♦ The 
curriculum at Carver Middle School is organized around 
courses in communication skills, mathematics, science, 
humanities, and exploratory activities. The school makes 
extensive use of community resources and conducts numerous 
field trips. In addition, the school day for students is 
divided into four periods of about 90 minutes duration to 
facilitate student-teacher interaction. »•» 

Although magnet schools may provide broad educational 
opportunities for students, some education authorities have 
criticized their use as an "escape route for whites assigned 
to predominantly black schools." They have also been 
described as "a new type of dual structure with unequal 
educational opportunities" which drain resources from other 
schools in the system.*** Magnet schools have a 
particularly deleterious effect when they are used as the 
only device for reassigning students in a desegregating 
district. 



215 



Preparation of the Staff 

Desegregating school districts usually provide human 
relations training to ensure a positive learning environment 
and to help teachers understand children of different racial 
and ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic levels. Of the 29 
case study districts, 23 have provided inservice human 
relations training.**^ Such training involves identifying 
cultural differences among groups, preparing multicultural 
materials, and teaching methodology. 

The Minneapolis school system provided human relations 
training for teachers to increase their effectiveness in 
educating children of different racial and ethnic 
backgrounds. A citywide network of faculty representatives 
from each school provided this training weekly during an 
early release period. Schools held all-day communications 
laboratories and the administration appointed two faculty 
members to obtain staff reactions to the desegregation plan. 
In addition, the administration held a series of workshops 
on institutional racism. Five years after desegregation, 
the school district continues to provide human relations 
training and racism workshops. **8 

The Berkeley school district launched a 
predesegregation and postdesegregation series of workshops 
and seminars to familiarize teachers and students with all 



216 



elements of desegregation and to allow discussion of fears 
or problems. The school administration also required 
teachers to take a series of courses in human relations and 
multicultural education, for which they received credits 
towards eventual pay raises. **« 

In Denver the desegregation plan required 5 hours of 
inservice training per semester for every teacher. In 
response to subsequent complaints that training was 
ineffective and not all teachers attended, the court ordered 
that an accountability system be developed. Teachers are 
now required to report their views on effectiveness of the 
training. I'^o 

Human relations training provided in Louisville was 
based on "the ripple effect," meaning that a certain number 
of teachers from each school attended a training institute 
and returned to their individual schools to train other 
teachers. »^» For the most part it was ineffective. Some 
school administrators said that it was not effective because 
it was designed with the expectation that the school 
district had one full school year to prepare teachers before 
desegregation* ■^ 2 a second reason for its lack of 
effectiveness was that it received minimal support and 
commitment from the central administration. *^3 However, the 



217 



few schools that were committed to the concept of human 
relations training held successful training workshops, i''* 

To implement broad changes in the curriculum 
successfully in a desegregated setting often requires new 
teaching techniques. As a direct result of desegregation, 
18 of the 29 districts reviewed by the Commission developed 
and implemented new teaching methods to make the curriculum 
more responsive. * ^s Many school districts attempted to 
individualize instruction by adding aides and other resource 
teachers and creating open classrooms to permit smaller 
groupings of students. 

The principal of Crosby Middle School in Jefferson 

County, Kentucky, described instructional improvements made 

at his school: 

...One part of our instructional program 
is. . .individualized instruction, which means that 
students work at their own pace. It means that 
each student can succeed at the level the student 
has achieved. .. .By using instructional packets, by 
subgrouping, we can facilitate. .. learning. .. for 
students who have different motivations.*^* 

In Hillsborough County, Florida, one-grade schools were 

created for the sixth and seventh grades in which 120 

students are heterogeneously grouped with one team leader 

and four teachers assigned to instruct all of them. At 

different times of the day, the students are divided into 

smaller groups for individualized instruction. * ''■' 



218 



After desegregation in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the concern 
for effective teaching brought about the development of a 
districtwide teacher accountability system. Extensive test 
data and other information on students are given to teachers 
in the form of student profiles so they can better tailor 
their instruction to the individual needs of students and at 
the same time be held accountable for the process. i^s 

In general desegregation has a renewing effect on 

teachers. At Commission hearings and open meetings many 

teachers testified that desegregation has caused them to 

reevaluate their methods, techniques, and attitudes and 

develop new ways to communicate with children. One teacher 

said: 

We have, because of desegregation, thrown 
out. . . some of the practices that were detrimental 
to education. . .we have put in place of those, 
educational practices that are more beneficial for 
all students. 179 

School Facilities and Supplies 

One of the most tangible and obvious effects of 

desegregation on the quality of education is the general 

upgrading of school buildings and facilities and the 

provision of adequate supplies. Information available to 

the Commission indicates that the reassignment of white 

students to previously minority schools has caused school 

administrators to correct the inadequate maintainance of 



219 



buildings and grounds of minority schools that existed for 
years. Moreover, they have corrected the shortage of 
educational supplies, textbooks, and classroom furniture 
which generally existed in minority schools. 

In Denver a black member of a school board advisory 
group testified that the school administration had different 
standards for minority and majority schools prior to 
desegregation. In addition to being older, black schools 
were inferior and unsafe. Ventilation was poor, roofs 
leaked, radiators were uncovered, bathroom facilities were 
limited, and gymnasiums often had cement floors. The 
schools were not provided air conditioning as most white 
schools were, and they were given mobile classrooms when the 
school became overcrowded. Predominantly black schools were 
generally short of textbooks, supplies, athletic equipment, 
and classroom furniture.* bo 

In speaking about the inequality of supplies and 
textbooks between majority-black and majority-white schools, 
a black student at the Tampa hearing testified: "The books 
had no backs, half the pages were gone... and you had to 
share one book [with] three people. "»8i 

P. R. Wharton, assistant superintendent for 
administration, acknowledged that improvements had been made 
to a former minority school: 

220 



I can think of one school where there was quite a 
bit to do about maintenance...! think it was run 
down. It was an elementary school. Carver School, 
and we went in there and did a great deal of 
maintenance prior to integrating that school, the 
summer prior to integration. * "2 

The black principal of Manual High School, a previously 

all-black school in Denver, testified that before 

desegregation the school administration had generally 

ignored requests for supplies and improvements in 

facilities. » 83 A parent of a Manual High School student 

testified: 

There have been drastic changes in the school 
since the implementation of the court order. . . . 
Manual began to. . .approach the equipment available 
in the other high schools. .. .My youngest son, who 
graduated in '75, had been Manual's athletic 
trainer for 3 years. He continually complained to 
me about the lack of basic equipment. .. .The 
equipment was below standard. The first time that 
Manual's tennis team had uniforms was when the 
kids from Washington and East and South [schools] 
came over and all of a sudden monies became 
available to provide equal equipment for black, 
white, Chicano students attending Manual, on a par 
with what the other schools had previously been 
used to. 184 

Similarly, in Berkeley a black parent testified that 

they had fought for years for remodeling of the cafeteria 

arid lighting in the basement of the black school in her 

neighborhood, but they were ignored until the schools 

desegregated. * bs 



221 



MINORITY STAFF 

Adequate minority representation on the school staff is 
critical to integrated education. Just as student exposure 
to students of other races and ethnic groups helps develop 
racial understanding, tolerance, and appreciation, so also 
does the presence of a multiracial and multiethnic staff. 

Minorities in positions of responsibility help dispel 
myths of racial inferiority and incompetence, provide 
positive role models for all students, help ease the 
adjustment of minority students and their parents as well as 
majority teachers, and help provide a multicultural 
curriculum. 

Stereotypic ideas may be held by white and black 
students and staff. Day-to-day interaction with minorities 
as co-workers or as teachers and administrators can help 
eradicate such misconceptions. This point was stressed by 
Mogul Du Free, an elementary school teacher in Tampa, who 
said: "I think that one of the things that has happened as a 
result of desegregation. ..[ is that] the stereotyped idea 
that Negro teachers [are] inferior is rapidly 
disappearing. "*•• 

A Tampa school administrator said that some white 
parents request that their children be assigned to black 
teachers because they feel it is a vital educational 

222 



opportunity. 187 A mother described her daughter's experience 

in this area: 

My child's favorite teacher in high school was her 
black Spanish teacher, and without desegregation, 
she never would have had this experience. I think 
it was a very rewarding experience for my 
child. 188 

Minority presence at all administrative and staff 

levels is necessary to reinforce positive images for both 

minority and majority students. i89 a community leader in 

Stamford stressed the need for minority staff: 

One other area that is constantly highlighted is 
the low minority representation throughout the 
school board's staff, especially the lack of black 
and Hispanic personnel. It is well known that 
students need to have that type imagery 
available i^o 

This point was also made by a principal at the Berkeley open 
meeting who said, "Oh, the kids definitely need role models. 
They need to have minority people, the majority kids need to 
have them, too."*'* 

Moreover, the use of minority teachers in bilingual- 
bicultural education programs contributes to a child's self- 
concept through a positive reinforcement of his or her 
background and culture.* '2 Self -concept is affected by 
interaction with teachers, and language-minority teachers 
are sometimes best able to communicate the encouragement and 
understanding needed by language-minority children. *93 



223 



Additionally, minority staff can help ease the 
adjustment of minority students to school desegregation. In 
many instances, minority students are transferred from a 
school where they were the majority to a school where they 
are in the minority. In these instances, they are often 
reassured by the presence of minority staff members who are 
sensitive to their needs. A witness at the Boston hearing 
addressed this issue, saying, "Youngsters began to say that 
we don't feel comfortable unless we see some of ours 
there. "19* 

A student, asked if there should be more minority 

teachers in his school, responded: 

Definitely so. Because black and Puerto Rican 
students feel that they can relate to somebody who 
is either black or Puerto Rican. . .because the 
majority of the teachers in the school are 
white. .. .They don't know what it's like, you know, 
to be living in a certain neighborhood. * 's 

A study of school desegregation in Goldsboro, North 
Carolina, found that "black students were more likely to 
participate on a par with white students in open classrooms 
in desegregated schools where the teaching staff was 
balanced in leadership and competence between black and 
white teachers. "» 9* 

The presence of minorities on the staff can help 
minority parents to become involved in school activities. 



224 



Accustomed to relating to minority teachers at a segregated 

school, minority parents may find the desegregated 

environment threatening. This may be especially true for 

parents with limited proficiency in English. Carmen Castro, 

executive director of the Spanish International Center of 

Stamford, said: 

Parents [ Hispanic ] have no way of communicating to 
principals or teachers in other schools because 
they do not have interpreters. [There was 
the], . .problem of the child having to interpret 
for the parent and interpret for the teacher, so 
that heaven knew what went on. The parent would 
never know what was going on.*'^ 

A teacher in Berkeley described how teachers of 

different races can gain understanding by sharing problems: 

[W]e [teachers] had meetings at least once a week 
where we sat around and tried to deal with each 
other and... work out problems that we were 
having. . .dealing with a multiethnic 
culture, ...[ I ]t was helpful to everyone. ... i «« 

As part of the desegregation process, many school 

districts introduce multicultural classes to the curriculum. 

Because most textbooks fail to treat the culture and 

historical contributions of minorities effectively, minority 

staff members are often the best source for knowledge in 

this area. Moreover, their presence gives credence to the 

school's effort to recognize and appreciate the contribution 

of all ethnic and racial groups. The contributions of black 

Americans to science and medicine may be taken more 



225 



seriously if the nurse and the science department 

chairperson are black. Similarly, the role of Hispanos in 

American history may be more authentic to a student hearing 

it for the first time when Hispanos are in positions of 

responsibility. According to a recent study: 

Desegregation exposes minority pupils to cultural 
marginality and confusion as to their own 
identity, unless the staff is interracial, unless 
the curriculum recognizes the minority group 
culture, and unless there is opportunity for 
choice between assimilation and pluralism.*" 

The School Desegregation Experience 

what happens to minority staff representation when 
school districts desegregate? Although no comprehensive 
statistics are available, analysis of the 29 case studies 
reveals that in 16 of the school districts, minority 
employment increased following school desegregation. In 
eight other school districts, minority employment remained 
the same, and a decrease was reported in two. 

In some school districts increases have been reported 
solely for the teaching force; others have shown gains in 
administrative positions. For example, prior to 
desegregation in Providence, there were no black principals, 
assistant principals, or central administrative staff. 200 By 
1975 there were three black principals and five blacks on 
the central administrative staff. Blacks in Memphis were 



226 



successful in securing an act of legislature that 

restructured the school board to ensure the election of 

blacks. 20* By 1973 three blacks served on the nine-member 
board. 20 2 

In many instances an effective impetus for change was a 
court mandate. Some court orders have dealt only with the 
reassignment of teachers and called for minority teachers to 
be equally dispersed throughout the system; others have 
mandated specific ratios; i.e. the ratio of minority 
personnel should reflect the ratio of the city population or 
the minority student population. 

Only a few school districts have actively pursued 
affirmative hiring practices on a voluntary basis. Minority 
staff representation was addressed by the court orders in 
Boston, Denver, Tampa (Hillsborough County schools) , and 
Louisville. In Tampa and Denver affirmative action plans 
have been in existence long enough to produce positive 
results. 

In many northern school districts there is 
underrepresentation of minorities in staff positions. With 
the advent of school desegregation, discriminatory hiring 
practices were often exposed and in some districts were 
directly addressed as part of the court order. The 197U 
court order in Denver required the school administration to 

227 



formulate an affirmative action plan to recruit and hire 
Hispanos and blacks. 203 ^g early as 1970 black and Hispanic 
organizations had pointed out the need for black and 
Hispanic personnel. 20* However, very little was accomplished 
in this area until the court mandate. 

The judge subsequently indicated that the goal of the 
plan should be to increase minority personnel hiring until 
the ratio mirrored that of Chicano and black students. 

In 1975 the student population in Denver was 17.8 
percent black and 2U.1 percent Hispanic; the teaching force 
in 1975 was 10.6 percent black and 4.8 percent Hispanic. In 
compliance with the order, the Denver school system adopted 
an affirmative action plan in March 1975 which includes 
recruitment, employee development programs, and career 
counseling, and provides job advancement provisions at all 
staff levels. As of February 1976, blacks constituted 10.7 
percent and Hispanics 6.1 percent of all teachers. In 197U 
blacks accounted for 8.0 percent of all administrative 
personnel, and by 1976 their percentage had increased to 9.8 
percent. Corresponding percentages for Hispanos were H.7 
and 6.1, respectively. 20s 

In Boston inadequate representation of minorities on 
the school staff was also addressed directly by the court 
order. 206 While the student population during the 1972-73 

228 



school year was approximately 33 percent black, only 5.U 

percent of the permanent teachers, 3.9 percent of the 

principals and headmasters, and 5.7 percent of the assistant 

principals and assistant headmasters were black. 207 The 

court required placement of black teachers in schools in 

accordance with the district wide proportion of black 

teachers at that level of instruction. In addition, of 280 

new permanent teachers, blacks and whites were to be hired 

on a one-to-one ratio until every qualified black applicant 

had been offered employment. 2 oe Three black recruiters were 

hired by the school committee to assist in this employment 

effort. 209 

A few school districts have instituted affirmative 

action programs voluntarily. As part of the desegregation 

process in Berkeley in 1968, the school administration 

adopted an affirmative action policy to "work as fast as 

possible to bring the number of minority teachers more in 

line with the number of minority students in the school 

district. "210 a former school board member described the 

recruitment efforts: 

...[W]e instructed him [personnel director] to go 
out and search for minority teachers all across 
the country. ...[ H]e went on tour throughout the 
U.S. to try to find qualified teachers and workers 
in the clerical area who could be brought to 
Berkeley and interviewed for jobs because we felt 
we had to be aggressive about this. 211 

229 



The Berkeley recruitment drive concentrated on 
predominantly black universities and colleges. Community 
and staff task forces served in an advisory capacity. 
Although the school system has not reached its goal, 
progress has been made. In 1968 blacks constituted 17 
percent of the faculty, Asian Americans 4 percent, and 
Hispanos 2 percent; in 1975 the percentages had increased to 
27 percent, 7 percent, and U percent, respectively. The 
system hired a black superintendent in 197U and two of its 
three assistant superintendents are black. The student 
population in 1968 and in 1975 was approximately 45 percent 
black, 7 percent Asian American, and 3 percent Hispanic. 2*2 
The Berkeley school system in the spring of 1976 was in the 
paradoxical situation of anticipating a layoff of 
approximately 120 teachers and because of a seniority 
stipulation, it was anticipated that 80 percent would be 
minority. 

Under the segregated school system in the South, blacks 
were hired to staff and administer black schools at all 
levels. 21 3 However, as school systems were desegregated in 
the late 1960s, the number of black staff members decreased 
drastically. Black principals and department heads, as well 
as faculty members, were often demoted or fired. 



230 



In many instances, it was obvious discrimination since 
they were not given an opportxinity to compete for the 
positions regardless of experience or education. 2»* Other 
school districts, while using subtler forms of displacement, 
produced similar results — black teachers were often placed 
in classrooms out of their fields and then fired for 
incompetence; reassigned as co-teachers with domineering 
whites or as floating teachers without their own classrooms; 
or assigned to nonprofessional positions such as hall 
monitors. 2»5 Between 195U and 1970 while the black student 
population in 17 Southern and Border States increased from 
23 percent to 25 percent, the black teacher force decreased 
from 21 percent to 19 percent. 21 6 

In 1970 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals responded to 

the discriminatory treatment of minority educators in a 

consolidated opinion covering 11 southern school districts. 

In Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District 

the court stated that: 

Staff members who work directly with children and 
professional staff who work on the administrative 
level will be hired, assigned, promoted, paid, 
demoted, dismissed or otherwise treated without 
regard to race, color or national origin. 

...[T]he district shall assign the staff... so that 
the ratio of Negro to white teachers in each 
school and the ratio of other staff in each, are 
substantially the same as each such ratio is to 



231 



the teachers and other staff, respectively in the 
entire school system. 217 

Increasingly, court orders contain stipulations covering the 

employment and assignment of minority staff and often 

mandate specific minority staff ratios. 

In Hillsborough County, the 1969 court order, 218 in 

addition to requiring faculty desegregation, mandated that 

faculty composition mirror the districtwide, black-white 

student ratio, which was approximately 18 percent black, 82 

percent white. At that time black teachers constituted 

approximately 15 percent of the faculty. 2»9 In an effort to 

comply with the court order, the school administration 

launched a 4-year recruitment drive covering more than 20 

predominantly black colleges and universities in 8 Southern 

States. 220 As a result of this drive, the number of black 

faculty members increased each succeeding year, from 732 in 

the 1969-70 school year to 915 in the fall of 1975.221 While 

this is an increase of only one percentage point, it is a 

step in a positive direction, especially when contrasted 

with occurrences in other southern school districts. (For 

example, in Escambia County, Florida, between 1967 and 1970, 

86 black teachers lost their jobs.) 222 Hillsborough County 

also recorded an increase in administrative positions. In 

1969, blacks occupied HO of 308 positions (13 percent) , and 



232 



in the fall of 1975, they held 60 of the 358 administrative 
positions (20 percent) . Moreover, black teachers and 
administrators who leave the system are replaced with 
blacks. 2 23 

The Hillsborough County administration, as a result of 
Federal pressure, also plans to equalize employment 
opportunities for women. 22* Although women constitute 73 
percent of the faculty, they hold none of the top 
administrative positions. 225 Additionally, of the 37 
secondary principal ships, only 3 are held by women. 22* 
CLASSROOM DESEGREGATION 

The constitutional and educational grounds for 
eliminating racially identifiable schools apply equally to 
classrooms. However, in desegregated school districts 
throughout the Nation, classes often are composed of 
students of one racial or ethnic group or vary considerably 
from the racial composition of the school. In the South, 
for example, statistics compiled by the Southern Regional 
Council show that two of every three school districts have 
one or more schools with racially identifiable classrooms. 
These districts include school systems in Alabama, Florida, 
Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Tennessee. 227 a study in 1973 reported that of U67 southern 
school districts, 35 percent of the high schools and 60 



233 



percent of the elementary schools had segregated 
classrooms. 228 
Ability Grouping 

The most common cause of classroom segregation is the 
educational practice of ability grouping. With the 
exception of Mississippi, 7 out of 10 school districts 
surveyed (in the 7 states mentioned above) that have 
racially identifiable classrooms use ability grouping. 229 

In schools in Southwestern States where Mexican 
American students are less than 25 percent of the 
enrollment, they constitute 35 percent of the low ability 
group and 8 percent of the high ability group classes. In 
schools 25 to 50 percent Mexican American, they constitute 
57 percent of the low group and 19 percent of the high 
group. In schools more than 50 percent Mexican American, 
more than three of every four students in the low groups are 
Mexican American, and only two of every five are Mexican 
American in the high groups. 2 30 

Research for the most part does not support ability 
grouping. While it is argued that grouping students 
according to their achievement levels ensures that academic 
needs are met, research findings are almost uniformly 
unfavorable with regard to its use in promoting scholastic 



234 



achievement, in low ability groups and are inconclusive in 
its use for high ability groups. 23 i 

Rather than providing an environment for meeting a 
variety of needs of individual students in each group, 
ability grouping assumes that students are equal in terms of 
needs and capabilities. Furthermore, teachers of low 
ability groups frequently are unprepared to teach these 
classes and generally have low expectations of their 
students. Course content may be watered down and 
stimulation from more academically prepared students is 
nonexistent. 23 2 a study by the National Education 
Association indicates that less than 5 percent of teachers 
at the elementary level and less than 2 percent at the 
secondary level want to teach low ability groups. 233 
Students are thus denied the opportunity of academic 
challenge from both teachers and peers. 

A Stamford teacher told the Commission, "Better 

teachers are rewarded the higher groups. "234 a student 

reported: 

Your teachers in the lower group[ s]. . .they are put 
there just to make sure you don't do anything in 
class. You sit for a couple of hours and that's 
it.... The teachers in the lower class don't show 
any kind of interest. 23s 

Students placed in low ability groups rarely perceive 
themselves as equal to nor are they considered equal by 



235 



students in higher groups. This grouping tends to deflate 

the self-esteem of students in low groups and inflate the 

ego of those in high groups. 2 36 a student in Stamford 

explained: 

Well, the majority of the black students. . .when 
they realize. . .why all the blacks are in this 
class and... all the whites in that class.... 
Basically, it makes them feel like they are lower. 
And then that builds... to be a hatred of white 
people in general. .. .2'^ 

The courts have been fairly consistent in holding that 
pupil assignment by standardized achievement or IQ test 
scores is unconstitutional when the intended and actual 
result is the perpetuation of the dual system, whether 
segregation exists within the system as a whole, 23 8 within 
individual schools, 23» or within individual classrooms. 2*o 

In some districts school boards or school 
administrators have explicit policies prohibiting classes of 
any one race. The administration of Hillsborough County 
Public Schools sent directives to teachers and 
administrators stating that no one class should be more than 
50 percent black. 24* At the Denver hearing, an associate 
superintendent testified that schools were directed to 
ensure that "classes not be allowed to be reorganized on a 
segregated basis," and that schools were looking for 
"alternative ways of grouping youngsters and organizing 



236 



classes and arranging for arrays of courses so that 
youngsters would not have to discontinue sequences they had 
already begun, but at the same time would not get involved 
in a tracking arrangement. . .that results in 
resegregation. "z^z The Dorchester, Maryland, school 
district, in addition to eliminating tracking in the upper 
grade levels, screened all classes to avoid all-black or 
all-white classes. 2*3 

Some schools have abolished ability grouping in certain 
subjects. In Denver, for example, the principal of Smiley 
Junior High School said that teachers had discussed the 
problem of ability grouping and decided to abolish it first 
in social studies. Ability grouping for other subjects had 
been discussed, but no consensus was reached. 2»* 

Ability grouping traps those students in the low 
ability groups; they are rarely ever assigned to any other 
group. 2*5 Furthermore, some students are not only assigned 
a low ability group in one subject but "tracked" in the same 
level in all subjects regardless of strength or weakness. 
Ability grouping and tracking foreclose a student's chance 
for ever excelling. 

Many schools replace ability grouping with new teaching 
approaches such as individualized instruction and team 
teaching, facilitated by the creation of open classrooms or 

237 



learning centers. In open classrooms racial percentages are 
often stipulated. In the sixth and seventh grade centers of 
the Hillsborough County Public Schools, Florida, the 
minority percentage of each group was stipulated at 20 
percent. 2** 

Thus, although most data indicate that classroom 
segregation is a serious problem in desegregated districts, 
schools in the Commission's survey acknowledge the problem 
and said they are seeking ways to deal with it. 
Assignment to "Special Education" Classes 

Segregation also occurs in "special education" classes, 
such as those for children with problematic behavior or with 
learning disabilities in which minority students are often 
overrepresented. Minority students are often incorrectly 
assigned to such classes. IQ test scores, the basis for 
assignment to classes for the educable mentally retarded 
(EMR) , have been found to be culturally biased and often 
reflect achievement or a child's ability to take tests 
rather than intelligence. 247 Moreover, white teachers and 
school administrators who recommend placement in EMR classes 
often are poor judges of minority student behavior or 
ability. 2*8 

A 197 3 study of a California school district found that 
91 percent of the black students and 60 percent of the 

238 



Mexican American students placed in EMR classes on the basis 
of IQ tests had been incorrectly assigned. 2*» In 1973 in 
Texas, the Commission found that Mexican American students 
were twice as likely to be placed in EMR classes as whites; 
the ratio of black students was 3 1/2 times greater. 2so The 
Office for Civil Rights of HEW in 1973 cited 1U districts in 
the Southwest in noncompliance with Title VI on the grounds 
of overinclusion of Mexican American students in special 
education classes. 2*» 

Testimony at the Tampa hearing indicates that black 
students are overrepresented in classes for the educable 
mentally handicapped (EMH) . The dean of girls of a junior 
high school explained that although the basis for assignment 
is low IQ test scores, most of the black students who score 
low are "disruptive" rather than retarded and, thus, should 
not be placed in EMH clases. She said they score low 
because they have a history of absence from school and 
therefore test poorly. 2 S2 

The Louisville-Jefferson county public school system 
has two programs for 700 disruptive students. One, called 
the Alternative School, is a self-contained school for 
students with "deviate behavior." It is 95 percent black. 
The other, the youth development program, consists of 
separate classrooms in 33 schools for students with less 



239 



serious behavioral problems. Students in this program are 
80 percent white. 2^3 school administrators explain that the 
alternative school was part of the majority-black Louisville 
school system and the youth development program was part of 
the majority-white Jefferson County system prior to merger 
of the two districts in the fall of 1975. Most students, 
they said, were assigned prior to merger, but no attempt has 
been made to reevaluate and reassign students. Furthermore, 
the difference in criteria in assigning students to either 
program has not been clearly defined. zs* 

In recognition of the discrimination involved. Federal 
courts have ruled against the use of IQ tests in assigning 
minority students to EMR classes. zss in Larry P . v. Riles , 
the San Francisco Unified School District was restrained 
from placing black students in EMR classes "on the basis of 
criteria which place primary reliance on the results of IQ 
tests as they are currently administered, if the result of 
use of such criteria is racial imbalance in the composition 
of such classes. "256 in Diana v. State Board of Education, 
California , 2S7 plaintiffs successfully challenged the use of 
IQ tests in assigning Mexican American children to EMR 
classes on the grounds that low IQ test scores resulted from 
their unfamiliarity with the English language. 



240 



EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES 

Participation in extracurricular activities helps 
students develop leadership skills, respect for the 
democratic process, competitiveness, and cooperation. It 
makes the school experience more meaningful and tends to 
enhance learning. In desegregated schools participation in 
extracurricular activities is crucial, since it develops 
feelings of belonging and a sense of pride in the new 
school. Furthermore, it contributes to producing a truly 
integrated school environment by providing students the 
opportunity to discover common interests and goals. 

Participation in extracurricular activities by students 
of all races does not happen automatically when schools 
desegregate. School administrators and teachers facilitate 
participation by establishing policies governing 
participation, providing transportation, supporting and 
encouraging students to participate, publicizing events and 
activities, and by an unwillingness to accept anything but 
full participation. Since desegregation brings together an 
entirely new student body, activities, clubs, and sports 
that reflect the interests of all the students are planned. 
Many desegregated school districts have made some efforts to 
ensure the participation of all students, but these efforts 



241 



usually are limited and generally have fallen short of what 
is required. 

In Prince George's County, Maryland, school coaches 
were instructed to accept all transferring athletes as team 
members at the new school. Student government officers, 
yearbook and newspaper staffs, school band members, and 
cheerleaders from previous schools were to retain their 
positions and serve jointly with officers and members at 
their new schools. zse Despite this policy, participation in 
extracurricular activities declined after desegregation 
because of limited activity buses, failure to duplicate 
special interest clubs, and lack of parental encouragement 
to participate in activities. 2S9 

Although most school districts report that they provide 
activity buses or bus tokens for public transportation, 
students testifying at Commission hearings often linked 
limited participation in extracurricular activities to 
transportation problems. A student from Brandon High School 
in Hillsborough County Public Schools said, "Most of [the 
black students ] live too far away to get involved in 
activit[ies] at Brandon because of lack of 
transportation. "2*0 A student at Kennedy High School in 
Denver explained: 



242 



Usually we have late gymnastics practice and it's 
hard for me to get home within a certain amount of 
time so I can still do my homework. That is the 
big problem at Kennedy, I think... it's 
transportation because I'm the only black coming 
from northeast Denver who is on the gymnastics 
team. They say that they can't get a bus for one 
student, so they give me these tickets to catch 
the city bus, but the city bus takes so much 
time... when I get home, I barely have time to 
study and then get a good night's rest. So it's 
really hard from the transportation part. 26 » 

In Louisville, a black student said: 

I was on the advisory council, but I never did 
make it to the meetings because I had no way to 
get out there. I called several times to tell 
them I had no transportation. I felt if they 
really wanted us on the advisory council and 
really wanted to hear what I had to say, they 
would have provided transportation. 2*2 

Schools sometimes compensate for inadequate 

transportation by providing activity periods during the 

regular school day. The principal of Dunbar Elementary 

School in Hillsborough County explained how the school 

surmounted the transportation problem: 

We have a club day which is every other Friday; it 
is from 1:30 to 2:30 and our students leave at 
2:45. The clubs are sponsored by the teachers 
with varying talents and it is a delightful 
experience. . .we enjoy it. 263 

Similarly, in Little Rock, Arkansas, student activities 

such as student council meetings, drama, and art take place 

during the regular school hours to avoid transportation 

problems. 2 64 



243 



Encouragement from teachers and administrators, though 

vital if minority students are to participate in 

extracurricular activities, is often lacking, and left 

alone, few students will choose to participate. Thelma 

Shuma, dean of girls of H.B. Plant High School, Hillsborough 

County, explained: 

It is hard for them to get into these extra 
activities because there is such a small number of 
them... they just feel [like] outsiders. 

...If the total administration and teachers at the 
school would encourage the black students to 
become involved, help them to become involved, 
then I think it would help. But they just leave 
it up to the student. . .and they don't get 
involved. 26 5 

Publicizing activities is one way to encourage 

participation. A student from Brandon High School, 

Hillsborough, said: 

...[T]he whites tell their friends about it 
[extracurricular activities] and they tell their 
friends. . .blacks don't really get interested or 
know about the clubs. . .[There' s a] lack of 
information. They just don't know about it. 2*6 

This student also said that encouragement is provided by 

black teachers but not white teachers. 267 

At Burke High School in Boston, white students 

hesitated to join sports teams that are predominantly black. 

According to Burke's coach, efforts to encourage white 

students to join the basketball team failed the first year. 



244 



but continued encouragement yielded four times as many white 

students for the following year's team. He explained: 

The [white] kids have become much more comfortable 
in the situation. The white kids are even causing 
trouble now, where they weren't at the beginning 
of the year, which is a--you don't want it, but it 
is a very natural thing. 268 

The Tulsa, Oklahoma, Independent School District faced 
the problem systemwide. School officials conducted 
workshops for the student council, cheerleaders, and pep 
club sponsors to explore the reason for lack of minority 
participation and to develop ways to encourage greater 
participation. 2*» Some schools in Hillsborough County 
require the student council to be representative of both 
bused and nonbused students. Although this policy has been 
effective in ensuring minority participation on the student 
council, it has not been used for interest clubs. 2^0 

When schools have been successful in bringing about 

participation of all students in extracurricular activities, 

students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds are 

likely to view each other as equals. The dean of boys of a 

junior high school in Hillsborough County told the 

Commission: 

We had a dance 2 weeks ago. It was formal, most 
of the boys appeared in tuxedos. The pupils 
elected a king and a queen from the ninth grade, 
and a prince and princess from the eighth grade. 



245 



our king is white; our queen is Cuban; our prince 
is black; our princess is Cuban. 27» 

STUDENT ATTITUDES 

Students, the major actors in the school desegregation 
process, consistently adjust to school desegregation in a 
positive manner. 

Superintendents queried in the Commission' s national 

survey said that a majority of students, both white and 

minority, supported desegregation in their districts. This 

was true of minority students in 72 percent of the districts 

and of white students in 62 percent. Furthermore, student 

support reportedly increased substantially after the 

desegregation plan was in operation. 2^2 In interviews and 

hearing testimony these feelings were generally expressed in 

very personal terms relating to individual experiences. One 

student in Denver said: 

when I first heard about going to Manual, I was 
...in eighth grade... and I think I might have been 
really scared. . .except my mom had been working 
with Mr. Ward and a lot of the kids and teachers 
and she knew a lot about it. 

And I had a lot of support from the house, my mom 
and older friends who are going to Manual now, and 
they said, "Don't be scared of it, now it's really 
great." And I think so now. 273 

Positive attitudes have been expressed by students even 
in school districts marked by disruptions and chaos. In 



246 



Pontiac, Michigan, where protests and violence characterized 

the beginning of school desegregation, parents and school 

personnel said that students, rather than the school board 

or central school administrators, had provided substantial 

leadership. 274 students at one school formed an organization 

known as The Group "to show the positive side of 

integration." During the following school year, several 

thousand students throughout the system joined The Group in 

support of the motto "We Can Make it Work."2''5 

In Boston, another district marked by violence, 

students testifying at the Commission's hearing emphasized 

the benefits of school desegregation. One student said: 

...what really sort of made me mad about the whole 
school year was all the good things that happened 
at Jerry [Jeremiah E. Burke High School]... it was 
never brought out. . .[ W]ithin the school it was 
brought out, but in the community, and the whole 
city of Boston, the media just kept [reporting] 
the bad things that were happening about 
desegregation in the schools. 276 

While busing is considered an inconvenience by some 

students, many students view it as a positive and often 

enjoyable experience. The Southern Regional Council found 

that students who are bused to school are more favorable 

toward busing than students who are not and that students in 

general are more positive about busing than adults. 277 a 

Tampa student concisely expressed his feelings about the bus 



247 



ride, "It is all right with me because I like to ride. "278 

Another Tampa student testified that her mother drove her to 

school because the bus ride would necessitate arising at 

H:H5 a.m.: 

...I would have to leave at a quarter to 6:00 if I 
wanted to ride the bus, therefore get up at a 
quarter to 5:00. 

This way, since I get a ride to school, I don't 
have to get up until 5:30, so I get extra 
sleep. 279 

A parent described her son's feelings about the bus ride: 

"He really rather enjoys the bus ride. On occasion I have 

offered to give him transportation home, and I have been 

reprimanded severely for that. "28 o 

Racial Attitudes 

Student testimony received by the Commission indicated 

that although desegregation initially had been a frightening 

or difficult adjustment because of preconceived notions or 

prejudices, it subsequently proved to be a worthwhile 

experience and essential preparation for life. A white 

student in Stamford said: 

...I happen to think that integration was the best 
thing that ever happened to me. I think it's 
really taught me to live with a lot of different 
people . . . .[T]hrough six grades in school, I was 
with only whites, and only with people who were 
around me. And I was, of course, all of a sudden 
thrown into a completely different atmosphere. 
And the adjustment was tough. But I learned to 



248 



deal with it.... So I think it's done me well and I 
happen to agree with it.^si 

A student in Minneapolis described his experience with 

school desegregation: 

...I feel that it has opened my mind and going to 
school with people from different 
backgrounds. . .has probably far more prepared me 
than sitting in an all-white school and learning 
Greek and Latin and so-called classical education. 
I think that getting out and meeting people from 
different backgrounds has probably better prepared 
me than. .. spending all that time learning at an 
all-white school .202 

A black student expressed his views: 

You won't know about people until you are mixed 
with them. And I think school is really where 
people get together and people mix, ...and I'd 
rather go to an integrated school than an 
all-black school. 283 

A student in Louisville said: 

If I hadn't gone to Thomas Jefferson, I would 
really be a narrow-minded person, because before I 
went there I went to a... private, all-white 
school, and I had no idea what other people were 
like, I couldn't care less. 

I didn't want to associate with anybody except 
whites. But at Thomas Jefferson, I got to where 
color didn't matter to me.... I didn't care whether 
they were black or not, it was what type of person 
they were, and I couldn't understand why so many 
people were so bigoted or prejudiced. 28* 

When student disruptions occur they are almost always 

of short duration and with time students quickly adjust to 

one another. Moreover, disturbances cited as racial 

incidents by the media or opponents of school desegregation 



249 



most often are viewed differently by school personnel and 

students. Staff at several high schools in Tampa 

consistently cited overcrowding as the cause of school 

disturbances during the beginning stages of school 

desegregation, rather than racial confrontations. ^es 

Increasingly, disturbances are seen simply as conflicts 

between students rather than racial incidents. A student in 

Denver stated: 

It's not racial stuff — just fights. Two white 
kids, two black kids; maybe it's black and white. 
That doesn't make any difference, it's two kids 
that have to fight it out because of a 
di sagreement .286 

In Charlotte, North Carolina, black and white students 
held a press conference to request that the superintendent, 
school board, and media "leave them alone" and stop blowing 
minor incidents out of proportion. The students said they 
were getting along fine. 28? 
Promoting Positive Racial Attitudes 

Fostering positive student racial attitudes is one of 
the goals made possible by school desegregation. School 
districts have produced positive results by providing 
opportunities for students to meet and interact both before 
the beginning of school and during the school year. These 
activities range from picnics and ice cream socials to 
retreats and summer jobs helping to reorganize the school. 

250 



students in Hillsborough County schools were involved from 

the very beginning, with 30 students serving as members of 

the citizens' committee which helped draft the plan. zee 

During the semester prior to school desegregation in 

Springfield, Massachusetts, orientation programs for parents 

and students were held at both sending and receiving 

schools. The program included a tour of the facilities, 

explanation of curricula, and question and answer sessions 

with the principal and faculty. ze 9 

Similarly, Denver students and staff from a number of 

receiving schools went to feeder schools to inform pupils 

about available courses and extracurricular activities and 

to reduce fears or anxieties. z'o A Denver organization 

sponsored a youth involvement program and brought students 

from various schools to YWCA facilities to swim and 

socialize prior to the beginning of the school year.*'* One 

Denver high school hired students over the summer to help 

prepare for school desegregation. 292 students assisted in 

marking books, mimeographing, taking inventory, and working 

with teachers to plan student orientation activities and 

discuss potential problems. The principal expressed the 

philosophy behind establishing such programs. 

...We felt that there had to be meetings where 
students could get together during that summer 
prior to the opening of school in the fall to see 

251 



what they could do to alleviate same of the kinds 
of tensions and problems and negative feelings 
that both parents and students would have. 2'3 

In Minneapolis, black and white students, including 
proponents and opponents of school desegregation, 
participated in a retreat. Its purpose was to acquaint them 
with one another, discuss problems, and obtain suggestions 
and recommendations. 2 94 The Berkeley superintendent created 
a task force of students who met with him on a regular basis 
to discuss the expectations, fears, and differences between 
cultural groups. These students became advocates for 
desegregation in their respective schools. 2»* 

During the early stages of desegregation, schools used 

varied techniques to keep students informed, help them 

adjust, and promote intergroup contacts, A teacher in the 

Denver school system devoted some class time to an 

explanation of the school desegregation issue. A student 

testified to the importance of this class. 

He discussed the whole issue of... busing, how it 
came about and the constitutional issue; and it 
really helped me, because before that I didn't 
know about it. 

And this year, I know he's maybe touched on it a 
couple of times, and the students are aware. z'* 

A teacher described her system of orienting students to 

their new environment: 



252 



I made plans to make the children feel as 
comfortable as possible at the school, so I set up 
a buddy system. ..[ T ]he children who had been 
attending Moore School would be a buddy, paired 
with someone from the satellite area. And I felt 
like this would make them feel more at home.z'^ 

In many school districts, students are organized in 
human relations or biracial councils. Although known by 
various titles and with different organizational structures, 
the councils have generally been established to promote 
positive student relations and a positive school spirit. 
Student advisory committees in Tampa, consisting of an equal 
number of minority and majority students, were organized in 
all secondary schools. z's The committees provided a forum 
for student interaction between the races and for developing 
appreciation of diverse backgrounds. 

Similarly, in Austin, Texas, triethnic student human 
relations committees (black, white, and Mexican American) 
organized activities to foster positive attitudes toward 
desegregation. 2 99 Racially mixed student coordinating 
councils operate in the schools of Charlotte-Mecklenburg to 
promote student involvement. 30o in a Denver high school, 
black and white students who "had it together" were 
organized into the "Smiley Action Team." If a student 
encountered a problem of a racial nature, he or she would be 



253 



"buddied" for a day or two with a member of the "Smiley 
Action Team," usually of the opposite race.'oi 

In Bogalusa, Louisiana, orientation of students to 
school desegregation and human relations activities were 
notably absent. 302 Racial relations among students have 
been strained since the initial stages of school 
desegregation and remained the same in 1976.303 in fact, 
school activities are kept to a minimum and each year two 
high school proms are held, one black and one white. ^o* 

School districts can contribute greatly to the 
promotion of positive student racial attitudes. By creating 
an environment that is not merely desegregated but truly 
integrated, much can be done to prepare students for life in 
a pluralistic society. A Denver student, when asked what 
stood out as the most significant experience of her senior 
year, responded: "I think, to me, it was learning that the 
world wasn't made up of the Bear Valley that I had always 
known. Now it's not secluded and there is not such an 
ethnic idea about our little community. "3os 



254 



I 



DISCIPLINE IN DESEGREGATED SCHOOLS 

Minority parents in most desegregated school districts 

are seriously concerned that a higher proportion of minority 

youngsters are subject to disciplinary measures, primarily 

suspensions and expulsions, than white students. The 

disproportion is most evident in statistics on student 

suspensions. The Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare reported the following facts based on an analysis of 

its 1973 school desegregation survey: 

...minority students are being kept out of school 
as a disciplinary measure more frecpiently and for 
longer periods of time than nonminority students. 

...the frequency of expulsions and suspensions of 
black, Spanish-surnamed, Asian American, and 
Native American- Indian students is nearly twice 
that of white students. The average length of a 
suspension is nearly a day more for a minority 
student than for a white student. 306 

The problem is of such magnitude that many studies have 

been conducted to determine its cause and consequences. 3 o^ 

Many school officials say that racially disproportionate 

suspensions do not mean racial discrimination, that "black 

overrepresentation among those suspended or expelled is 

simply incident to the fair administration of essential 

school rules designed to safeguard the integrity of the 

teaching and learning environment. "^oe Minority students, on 

the other hand, often see racially disproportionate 



255 



suspensions as a lack of fairness in the application of 
school rules and discipline. The disparity is of such a 
magnitude, however, as to make any nonracial explanation 
suspect in some quarters. The consequence of mass 
suspension and expulsion of minority students is that many 
of these people become disillusioned and drop out or, more 
accurately, are pushed out of school. ^O' 

In Hillsborough County, Florida, during 1970-71, the 
year prior to total desegregation, 4,805 students were 
suspended. During 1971-72, the first year of desegregation, 
8,598 students were suspended. In 1973-7U the number 
increased to a peak of 10,1U9, almost 10 percent of the 
student population, and about half were minority students 
who were only 20 percent of the total school enrollment. '* o 
Hillsborough County school officials maintain that, although 
a disproportionate number of minority students are 
suspended, it is not due to discrimination but that a large 
proportion of black students are disobeying the rules. 3*» 

The black community, concerned for some time over the 
number of black student suspensions, filed a complaint with 
the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare charging discrimination in 
the administration of discipline. After an investigation, 
HEW notified the school district that its disciplinary 

256 



policies had a discriminatory impact on minority students 
and it should develop an affirmative action plan to 
alleviate the problem. 3*2 

During the first 4 months of desegregation in Denver, 
3,844 students were suspended, 2,748 of whom were minority 
students. Of the junior high school suspensions, 73 percent 
were minority students although they constituted only 45 
percent of the junior high population. HEW's Office for 
Civil Rights had notified the Denver school superintendent 
of probable noncompliance with the Emergency School Aid Act 
regulation governing the administration of disciplinary 
sanctions3i3 and recommended that they review and analyze 
incidents of suspension to determine what causes or 
procedures had led to the disproportionate suspension of 
minority students. OCR further suggested that alternatives 
be tried, using suspension only as a last resort, but warned 
against alternatives which segregate children and provide 
inferior services and education. In reference to the 
desegregation process, OCR stated that particular attention 
should be given to the transition pressure for children 
entering certain schools. ^i* 

Disproportionate discipline is evident even at the 
elementary level. A Denver elementary school teacher 



257 



expressed his concern about the disparate treatment of 

minority children: 

I became very upset that every time I would walk 
into the office, the office would be full of 
blacks and Chicanes to be disciplined. It just 
didn't set right with me... why was it that 
Chicanes and blacks were the only ones causing 
trouble in the school? Why were they always 
sitting on the bench?3»* 

The suspension problem in the Jefferson County Public 

Schools in Louisville is a major concern of black leaders 

and parents. 31* In April 1976 the Louisville Times reported 

that some Jefferson County high schools were suspending 

black students at rates 7 to 15 times as high as the rate 

for white student suspensions, and that black suspensions 

were highest in newly desegregated schools that were part of 

the old, predominantly white, county school system. In 

schools formerly part of the Louisville city school system, 

the suspension rate for blacks was markedly lower. County 

principals maintain that the disparity is justified because 

they are having special discipline problems with black 

students who became used to lax discipline in the city 

schools they attended before desegregation. '»7 The 

newspaper quoted several principals: 

Those kids just can't adjust to the fact that you 
don't leave class when you want to, you don't come 
to school when you want to. 3** 



258 



...those kids tend to talk back more, they tend to 
be louder, they tend to express themselves with 
less hesitation and reservation. They tend to 
fire back at you.3i9 

Another white principal in a formerly predominantly 

white county school, who asked not to be named in the news 

article, was quoted as saying: 

I think there ought to be some alternative where a 
person is suspended as an in-school type of thing, 
but he doesn't go to a classroom. He goes to a 
rock pile and he's supervised by two Marine drill 
sergeants. He goes to the compound for six hours 
a day, and he works. He sweats. ^ 20 

City principals deny that city schools are lax in 

requiring discipline and say that many of the problems are 

caused by insensitivity of county principals: 

Black kids have a different culture. They talk 
differently than white kids and some of the people 
in [the county] schools are not used to it. So, 
instead of trying to get used to it, the thing 
that they use to get the kids under control is ... 
suspension. . . ^zi 

In Berkeley, where disproportionately high suspension 

of black students also is an issue. Dr. Ramona Maples, 

associate director of research for the school district, 

offered this explanation: "Black children still do not know 

how to beat the system. They do not know the appropriate 

way to get through the system without getting punished." Dr. 

Maples said that more black male children are disciplined 

than any other group. 32 2 



259 



In Prince George's County almost 4 6 percent of the 

students suspended in the 3-month period following 

desegregation were black, although black students were only 

about 25 percent of the student population. ^23 a white 

administrator for Prince George's County schools admitted 

that the racial attitudes of school personnel could 

contribute to the high number of black suspensions: 

I personally would expect that the suspension rate 
for whites and blacks would conform generally to 
the racial distribution of students in the system. 
If proportionately greater numbers of blacks are 
suspended than whites, I think we have a problem 
of discrimination. '24 

In Prince George's County, officials also cited 
inconsistency in the application of discipline. Black and 
white school personnel noted a general "inattentiveness" to 
the behavior of black students by many white teachers. One 
teacher stated that some white teachers say they are afraid 
of black students and allow them to cut class and roam the 
halls while compelling white students to follow the rules. 
This attitude, many felt, was "the most derogatory attitude 
possible" because it led black students to misbehave 
further. A black counselor said that "fear of black 
students" was a "copout" because "the plain and simple fact 
is that they don't care about these children. "' 25 



260 



Disciplinary policies which allow students to avoid 

suspension if their parents come to the school for a 

conference can result in lower suspension rates for white 

students. Minority parents often are unable to come to 

school for a teacher conference because they work or do not 

have transportation. A review of Richland County School 

District No. 1 in South Carolina revealed that, because of 

white parental conferences, white students receive fewer or 

shorter suspensions. 32 6 a black community leader in Tampa 

said: 

T submit that the reason more white students are 
disciplined within the school and kept there 
without having to be suspended or expelled is 
because more white parents are available for 
conference with the school administrators and to 
work out the problems on the spot or through a 
continuing basis. ^z? 

Discipline Codes 

School desegregation frequently is followed by a 

toughening of disciplinary rules and regulations, often at 

the urging of white antidesegregation groups. Citizens for 

Community Schools, an antibusing group in Prince George's 

County, joined by some county teachers, shifted its 

attention from busing and desegregation to student conduct. 

The toughness of the system's disciplinary policies also 

became a key point of debate among candidates during the 

1973 school board race.^za in Louisville-Jefferson County 



261 



with the implementation of desegregation, the teachers' 
union pushed for a strong disciplinary policy. ^ 29 

Discipline or behavior codes are usually very general 
and most punishable offenses depend upon the subjective 
judgment of teachers, such as annoying classmates, lack of 
cooperation, rude and discourteous behavior, restlessness 
and inattentiveness, excessive talking, and mischief. ^30 

Because individual principals usually have complete 

authority over discipline, all schools do not operate under 

the same behavior codes. Consequently, when desegregation 

reassigns students, they must often adjust to new rules and 

regulations. In Prince George's County schools, the 

Commission found: 

...standards of discipline in individual schools 
varied widely throughout the county. The absence 
of a single, systemwide code of discipline caused 
the greatest adjustment problems for students who 
transferred from a relatively lenient school to a 
strict school. For these students the problem of 
adjusting was occasionally compounded by the fact 
that some schools reportedly failed to orient 
their new students adequately. As a result, some 
students learned the new rules the hard way. ...33i 

Litigation and Civil Rights Complaints 

Minority parents have begun to challenge the 
discriminatory aspects of the administration of discipline. 
In Tillman v. Dade County School Board the issue centered on 
fighting between black and white students. ^32 Although 



262 



evidence failed to prove whether blacks or whites had 
initiated the disruption, all but 6 of the 93 students 
initially suspended were black. With some suspensions 
lifted, 1 white student and U7 black students were suspended 
for 10 or more days. In this incident, school authorities 
had summoned the police, who separated black and white 
students who were fighting by pushing the white students off 
the campus while containing the blacks inside the school. 
The court accepted the defendants' position that police 
action had caused only black students to be easily 
identified and apprehended for misconduct. 33' 

In contrast, a Federal court in Dallas, Texas, ruled 
that disciplinary policies were applied in a racially 
discriminatory manner following desegregation in that city's 
schools. Of 10,3U5 students suspended in 1971, 5,aa9 were 
black. 33* Asked to explain the high rate of black 
suspensions, the Dallas school superintendent testified that 
institutional racism and racism among individuals was the 
cause."* 

Civil rights and parent groups also have filed 
complaints with HEW which, under Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 196U and the Emergency School Aid Act, has a 
responsibility to ensure that school districts do not 
practice discrimination. In one such complaint filed 

263 



against Richland County School District No. 1 (Columbia, 
South Carolina), HEW reviewed the district's student 
disciplinary practices, including statistical data and 
written policies and procedures. HEW also interviewed 
central staff, school personnel, and students at selected 
schools. The statistics showed a disproportionate 
suspension rate of minority students. The review found that 
the ratio of minority students suspended for subjective 
offenses was disproportionate to the ratio of whites 
suspended for similar offenses. It also found that 
administrators and teachers ("vestiges of the racially 
separate dual school system") had not been adequately 
prepared to deal with the problems of adjustment to a 
desegregated school environment. 33 6 

Minority students are more often suspended for 
"institutionally inappropriate behavior. "337 ^g one author 
said, "When a black student or parent refers to 
institutional racism. .. he is arguing. . .that the institution 
has an obligation to alter its rules to make them less 
arbitrary and more consistent with the behavior patterns 
among blacks. "^ 38 on the other hand, the author notes, 
"When a white student or parent argues the need for 
discipline, he is implicitly sanctioning the system of 



264 



institutional rules and maintaining that black children must 

learn to adapt to that system. "3 39 

Thus, basic differences in culture, lifestyle, and 

experiences in a white- dominated society and the reluctance 

of the system to accommodate these differences account, in 

part, for the high rate of suspension for minority students. 

In Hillsborough County a witness said: 

...during [the human relations workshops ].. .there 
was no indepth attention given to some. ..of the 
major problems. . .cultural awareness as to dress 
styles, language barriers, and the black psyche in 
general, by which I mean the way a student reacts 
to a verbal command of authority from a white 
teacher. 

I feel there was some insensitivity on the part of 
teachers because. . .there is a tendency of black 
people to view whites as the oppressor and the way 
in which you give a command to a student or order 
him to do something has a lot to do with his 
response. 3*o 

Efforts to Remedy the Problem 

Individual schools have approached the problem of 

minority suspensions in a variety of ways. A principal in 

Richland County, South Carolina, does not believe in 

suspensions. Her technique for curbing suspensions includes 

working with classroom teachers to identify potential 

behavior problems, using the voluntary services of a local 

university's psychology department to test and interview 

these students, and, where necessary, working with community 



265 



service organizations to establish communication with the 
family. Where discipline is necessary, measures are used 
such as work details or special assignments with close 
teacher supervision. 3* * 

A Jefferson County, Kentucky, principal, whose school 
has the lowest suspension figures in the district for both 
black and white students, said he does not suspend students 
unless county school policy requires it. He noted that a 
youngster often has problems in a single class and, 
conseqpiently, he will suspend the student only from that 
class. 3*2 A school in Berkeley has established a help 
center where students are counseled and can talk about their 
problems. Students involved in a fight for the first time 
are sent to the help center. If a second fight occurs, they 
are again sent to the center and their parents are told that 
a third referral will result in suspension. 3*3 

A Denver principal testified that her school uses 

overnight suspensions for students who repeatedly are 

involved in "some kind of minor infraction of school rules." 

According to the principal: 

In an attempt to involve the home and to let the 
parents know what we are saying and what we are 
doing and why we are doing it, we will suspend Tom 
Jones at the end of his schedule today, and say 
you cannot come back tomorrow morning until we 
talk with your parents. Please bring your parents 
back with you or contact us by phone, if they are 



266 



working. So we have quite a number of .. .overnight 
suspensions. But the youngster is not missing 
school. 3** 

While most administrators tend to deny categorically 
that racial discrimination is involved in the high 
suspension rates for minority students, few have studied the 
problems in their own districts. Where efforts have been 
made, it appears that school systems may not be able to 
evaluate themselves objectively. In both Hillsborough 
County, Florida, and Jefferson County, Kentucky, school 
administrators recognized the problem of disproportionate 
suspension rates of minority students. 3*5 But neither 
school district has made an investigation of the issue. 

In Jefferson County, the Federal judge ordered the 
school district to investigate disciplinary procedures, but 
the subsequent report, basically a survey of opinion on 
whether or not the disciplined student committed the 
offense, did not look at some of the core issues. 3** For 
example, no comparison was made of the types of offenses for 
which black and white students were suspended, or the length 
of time each was suspended. There was no analysis of the 
judgmental aspects of discipline or of teachers and schools 
with the most discipline referrals. The discipline codes 
were not analyzed for cultural bias. 



257 



The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare has undertaken a program to 
determine compliance with civil rights statutes in school 
systems where there appear to be possible violations in the 
administration of student disciplinary actions. OCR has 
issued requirements for keeping records on student 
disciplinary procedures. 3*7 These records will also be useful t 
district doing a self-evaluation. 

The complexity of the problem cannot be overlooked. 
School administrators must recognize that desegregation 
requires reevaluation of all school policies and procedures 
to ensure that they do not have a discriminatory effect on 
minority children. Discipline codes, the cultural standards 
on which they are based, and whether they are fair standards 
for all children must be examined. Similarly, teacher 
attitudes, the verbal and nonverbal signals they use to 
convey acceptance or disapproval, and how different groups 
of students receive such messages should be studied. Only 
when administrators and teachers become sensitive to the 
problem can effective solutions be found. 

On the issue of discipline and its devastating effect 
on the education of both minority and poor children, a 
community leader in Louisville said: "There has to be a 
better way. Instead of trying to find an alternative to 

268 



busing... our elected officials and... the school board 
[should] find alternatives to suspensions. "'♦• 



269 



Note To Chapter III 

1. John Egerton, School Desegregation; A Report Card from 
the South (Atlanta: Southern Regional Council, April 1976) , 
p. 32. 

2. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, Virginia Advisory 
Committee, The Federal Role in School Desegregation in 
Selected Virginia Districts (1968), p. 5. 

3. It should be noted that there was opposition by leaders 
in districts which had no disruptions (e.g., in 35 percent 
of these districts, local business leaders were opposed to 
desegregation) . 

U. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, School Desegregation 
in Ten Ccwimunities (1973) , p. 20 (hereafter cited as Ten 
Communities ) . 

5. U.S., commission on Civil Rights, Desegregating the 
Boston Schools t A Crisis in Civic Responsibility (1975) , p. 
vlii (hereafter cited as Crisis in Civic Responsibility) . 

6. Ibid., p. 66. 

7. Berkeley transcript, testimony of Carol Sibley, former 
school board member, p. A- 4 7. 

8. Ibid., p. A-46. 

9. Ten Communities , p. 151. 

10. Minneapolis, Minn., Case Study, p. 25. 

11. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, A Long Day's Journey 
into Light ; School Desegregation in Prince George's County 
(1976) , p. 3'»3 (hereafter cited as Long Day's Journey) ; 
Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, 
(355 F. Supp. 1038, 1063 (D. Md. 1972)). 

12. Bogalusa, La., Case Study, p. 2U. 

13. Greenville, Miss., Case study, pp. 6, 7. 
m. Ten Communities , p. 109. 

15. Ibid., p. 66. 

270 



16. Denver transcript, p. 197. 

17. Ibid., p. 188. 

18. Crisis in Civic Responsibility , p. 29. 

19. Boston, Mass., Office of the Mayor, press release, 
Sept. 9, 1975. 

20. Long Day* s Journey , p. 373. 

21. Ibid. 

22. Tampa transcript, p. 201. 

23. The State Journal (Frankford, Ky.) , Sept. 7, 1975, p. 
4. 

24. Louisville transcript, testimony of Jefferson County 
Judge Todd Hollenbach, pp. 474-76. 

25. Denver transcript, testimony of Art Dill, p. 191. 

26. Tampa transcript, p. 175. 

27. Ibid., p. 176. 

28. Crisis in Civic Responsibility , p. 29. See also, James 
F. Fisk and Raymond T. Galvin, "A Consultant Report on the 
Boston Police Department During the 1974-75 School 
Desegregation," draft report to the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights, June 3 0, 1975. 

29. John Egerton, Promise of Progress, Memphis School 
Desegregation , 1972 - 1973 (Atlanta: . Southern Regional 
council, 1973) . 

30. Ibid., p. 13. 

31. Ibid., p. 8. 

32. Ibid., p. 23. 

33. Tampa transcript, testimony of W. Scott Christopher, 
pp. 72, 73. 

34. Greenville, Miss., Case Study, p. 6. 

271 



35. Staff Investigation Summary, Louisville and Jefferson 
County, pp. 28-36. 

36. Denver transcript, testimony of Bishop Melvin Wheatly, 
United Methodist Church of Denver, p. 119-20, and Bishop 
George Evans, vicar of urban affairs, Roman Catholic 
Archdiocese of Denver, pp. 121-22. 

37. Ibid., p. 122. 

38. Denver transcript, testimony of Lorie Young, p. 7U0. 

39. Egerton, Promise of Progress , p. 11. 
ao. Ibid., pp. 15-16. 

41. Corpus Christi, Tex., Case Study, p. 88. 

42. Crisis in Civic Responsibility , p. 200. 

43. Ibid., pp. 201-2. 

44. Ibid., pp. 202-3. 

45. Dorchester County, Md. , Case Study, p. 19. 

46. Greenville, Miss., Case Study, p. 7, 15. 

47. Louisville transcript, testimony of Lois Cronholm, 
director, Louisville-Jefferson County Human Relations 
Commission, p. 375. 

48. Ibid., testimony of Galen Martin, director, Kentucky 
Commission on Human Relations, pp. 376-77. 

49. Ibid., p. 377. 

50. "The Burden of Responsibility," Courier - Journal , Aug. 
6, 1975. 

51. See, for example, Minneapolis Case Study, p. 17; also, 
Tampa transcript, testimony of E.L. Bing, assistant 
sujjerintendent for supportive services, Hillsborough County 
School District, p. 38. 



272 



52. See, for example, testimony of Rev. Richard Kerr, 
chairman. People Let's Unite for Schools, Denver transcript, 
pp. 106-11. 

53. Crisis in Civic Responsibility , p. 80. 
5a. Ibid., pp. 85-86. 

55. Greenville, Miss., Case Study, p. 13. 

56. Crisis in Civic Responsibility , Finding No. 13, p. 53. 

57. Ibid., Finding No. 21, p. 73. 

58. Tampa transcript, Bing testimony, p. 38. 

59. Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough 
County, Florida, 277 F.2d 370 (5th Cir. 1960). 

60. Tampa transcript, Bing testimony, p. U6. 

61. Prehearing interviews, Jan. 12, to Mar. 26, 1976, 
Commission files. 

62. Minneapolis, Minn., Case Study, p. 17. 

63. Ibid., p. 21. 

6i». Kalamazoo, Mich., Case Study, p. 4. 

65. Ibid., p. 7. 

66. See, for example. Long Day's Journey , p. 3 54; Berkeley 
transcript, testimony of Ramona Maples, p. A-90. 

67. Harold Clark, general area director, Hillsborough 
County schools, interview in Tampa, Jan. 16, 1976. 

68. Fred Crawford, equal opportunity specialist. Community 
Relations Service, U.S. Department of Justice, interview in 
Tampa, Mar. 1, 1976. 

69. Tampa transcript, p. 399. 

70. Ibid., p. UOO. 

71. Ibid., p. 399. 

273 



72. Berkeley transcript, testimony of Ramona Maples, p. A - 
90. 

73. Boston transcript, testimony of Ellen Jackson, 
director. Freedom House Institute on Schools and Education, 
p. 212. 

74. Ibid., pp. 212-13. 

75. See, for example, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The 
Diminishing Barrier : A Report on School Desegregation in 
Nine Communities , 1972, p. 46 (hereafter cited as 
Diminishing Barrier); Springfield, Mass., Case Study , p. 11. 

76. Ossining, N.Y., Case Study, p. 9. 

77. Berkeley, Calif., Case Study, p. 18. 

78. Denver transcript, testimony of Mary Ann McClain, p. 
906. 

79. Ibid., testimony of Nancy Widmann, p. 961. 

80. Springfield, Mass., Case Study, p. 11. 

81. Louisville transcript, testimony of Joseph McPherson, 
principal. Central High School, pp. 604-05. 

82. Denver transcript, p. 800. 

83. Title VII of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides 
funds for implementation of voluntary and court-ordered 
desegregation plans in schools. 20 U.S.C. §1601 et seq . 
(Supp. II 1972) . 

84. Egerton, Report Card from the South , p. 18. 

85. Ten Communities , p. 163; Diminishing Barrier , p. 7. 

86. Boston transcript, pp. 251-52. 

87. Crisis in Civic Responsibility , p. vi. 

88. See, for example, Ossining, N.Y. , Case Study, p. 13; 
Long Day's Journey , p. 33 6; Egerton, Promise of Progress , 
pp. 8-9. 



274 



89. Promise of Progress , pp. 8-9. 

90. Denver transcript, testimony of Richard Kerr, p. 109; 
testimony of Maurice Mitchell, p. 71, 

91. Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 413 
U.S. 189 (1973). 

92. Denver transcript, p. 109. 

93. Ibid., pp. 71-72. 

94. Ibid., p. 962. A parent organization in Denver, for 
example, sponsors monthly programs at individual schools 
which consist of a number of cultural exchange activities. 

95. Ibid., p. 795. Reference is made to The East and 
Manual Supporters (TEAMS) , an active parent organization 
that assisted in the implementation of desegregation at 
those high schools. 

96. Tampa transcript, pp. 656-57. 

97. Louisville transcript, testimony of Ernest c. Grayson, 
superintendent, Jefferson County Board of Education, pp. 
770-73. 

98. Ibid., testimony of Rev. Thomas Quigley, director, 
Louisville Area Interchurch Organization for Service 
(LAIOS) , p. 562. 

99. Denver transcript, p. 75. 

100. Tampa transcript, testimony of Stephen Sessums, former 
chairman of the Bi-Racial Advisory Committee, p. 438. This 
committee, created by court order, serves in an advisory 
capacity in three areas: the selection of school 
construction sites, the establishment of boundary lines, and 
application for transfers from assigned schools. 

101. Ibid., testimony of Joanna Jones, member of the Bi- 
Racial Advisory Committee, p. 804. 

10 2. Satellite attendance zones are attendance areas that 
are geographically noncontiguous to the school. Pairing or 
grouping of schools is achieved when attendance areas of two 
or more schools are merged so that each serves different 



275 



grade levels for a new larger attendance area. Clustering 
is similar to the process of pairing but usually involves 
more schools. Grade-locking refers to the establishment of 
one- or two-grade centers, for example, a school which 
serves only sixth graders or sixth and seventh graders. A 
magnet school ranges from a full-time school with special 
academic programs to a center with programs which supplement 
basic academic skills taught in the regular classroom. In 
the South the black schools were frequently closed because 
of the inadequacy of the facilities. 

103. U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
National Institute of Education, Summary of Statistics on 
School Desegregation Issues, April 1976, pp. 1,2. 

10U. The figure $129 million was compiled by multiplying the 
number of pupils bused for school desegregation purposes 
times the per pupil transportation cost. U.S. Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for 
Educational Statistics, 1973-74. 

105. Marian Wright Edelman, "Winson and Dovie Hudson's 
Dream," Harvard Educational Review , vol. U5, no. 4 (1975), 
p. U45. 

106. Ibid., pp. 444-445. 

107. Ibid., p. 445. 

108. U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
National Institute of Education, Statistics on Selected 
Desegregation Issues, April 1976, p. 2. 

109. Reassignment data were compiled from 491 school 
districts and busing data from approximately 250. U.S., 
Commission on Civil Rights, national survey data, 1976. 

110. The percentage increase ranged from 3.4 to 50. State 
Advisory Committee Case Study, Characteristic Profile 
Summary. 

111. Ibid. 

112. Data compiled from case study factsheets for each 
district. 

113. Minneapolis, Minn., Case Study, p. 11. 



276 



1ia. Ibid., p. 14. 

115. Ibid., p. 15. 

116. Ossining, N.Y. , Case Study, p. 5; Case Study Factsheet: 
Ossining, N.Y. 

117. Ossining Case Study, p. 6. 

118. Erie, Pa., Case Study, p. 6. 

119. Ibid., p. 29. 

120. Case Study Factsheet: Ogden, Utah. 

121. Ogden, Utah, Case Study, pp. 6-7. 

122. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, Staff Report, 
Hillsborough County School Desegregation (March 1976) , pp. 
105, 107, 108. 

123. Ibid. 

12U. Ibid., pp. 110-12. 

125. Tampa transcript, testimony of Wayne Hull, assistant 
superintendent for business and research, Hillsborough 
County School District, pp. 359-60. 

126. Ibid., p. 361. The land area of Hillsborough County is 
approximately 1,040 square miles. 

127. Ibid., testimony of Janet M. Middlebrooks, PTA 
president, p. 654. 

128. Louisville transcript, testimony of Tuwana Roberts, p. 
619. 

129. Egerton, Report Card from the South , p. 22. 

130. For example, see Denver transcript, testimony of Laura 
Hendee, vice principal, Merrill Junior High School, p. 412; 
Louisville transcript, testimony of Barbara Cummings, 
teacher, Crosby Middle School, p. 636. 

131. For example, see Denver transcript, testimony of Ramona 
McHenry, teacher, Merrill Junior High School, p. 401, and 



277 



testimony of Teresa Torres, teacher. Baker Junior High 
School, p. 371. 

132. For example, see Tampa transcript, testimony of Ishmael 
Martinez, teacher, H. B. Plant High School, p. 547. 

133. See Nancy St. John, School Pes egr egati on Outcomes for 
Children (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 36; Meyer 
Weinberg, "The Relationship Between School Desegregation and 
Academic Achievement: A Review of the Research," Law and 
ContemporaiT Problems , vol. 39, no. 2 (Spring 1975), pp. 
2U2-43. 

13U. Weinberg, "Relationship Between School Desegregation 
and Academic Achievement," p. 269. 

135. Williamsburg, S.C., Case Study, and Egerton, Report 
Card from the South, pp. 21-2U. 

136. Berkeley transcript, testimony of Arthur Dambacher, pp. 
B-12a-28. 

137. Minneapolis transcript, testimony of W. Harry Davis, 
director, Minneapolis School Board, pp. 329, 33 0. 

138. Berkeley transcript, testimony of Arthur Dambacher, pp. 
B-139-1U0. 

139. Of the 29 districts investigated, 17 have instituted 
ethnic studies or multicultural programs. 

1U0. Minneapolis transcript, testimony of Mike O'Donnell, 
teacher. Wilder School, p. 620. 

141. Tampa transcript, testimony of Kenneth Otero, teacher, 
H.B. Plant Senior High School, p. 555". 

142. School systems in Massachusetts are required by the 
Transitional Bilingual Education Act of 1972 to provide 
bilingual instruction if the number of any one language 
group exceeds 20 students in each system. In Boston, 187 
teachers are employed to teach children whose native 
languages are Spanish, French, Chinese, Greek, Portuguese, 
and Italian. Boston School Department, Bilingual Programs, 
Boston Public Schools, Mar. 1, 1975. M.G.L.A. c. 71A, §2. 



278 



1U3. Tampa transcript, testimony of Norma Labato, 
coordinator, bilingual education, Hillsborough County Public 
Schools, pp. 917-34. 

^HH, The Indochinese Migration Refugee Assistance Act of 
1975, Public Law 94-23 et seq . (May 23, 1975) , made this 
program available in January 1976. 

14 5. Denver transcript, testimony of Albert Aguayo, 
bilingual program supervisor, Denver Public Schools, pp. 
774-75. 

146. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, A Better Chance to 
Learn; Bilinqual - Bicultural Education (1975) (hereafter 
cited as Better Chance to Learn) . 

147. Berkeley transcript, testimony of Gene Roh, school 
board member, Berkeley Independent School District, p. A-71. 

148. Better Chance to Learn , pp. 29-30, 86-87. 

149. Denver transcript, testimony of Roscoe Davidson, 
associate superintendent, Denver Public Schools, p. 573. 

150. Tampa transcript, testimony of Frank Farmer, assistant 
superintendent, Hillsborough County Schools, p. 297. 

151. James D. Ward, Denver, Colo., staff interview, Dec. 4, 
1975. 

152. The Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA) 20 U.S.C. §1601 et 
seq . (Supp. IV 1974) is designed to "encourage the 
voluntary elimination, reduction, or prevention of minority 
group isolation in elementary and secondary schools with 
substantial proportions of minority group students, and to 
aid school children in overcoming the educational 
disadvantages of minority group isolation." 20 U.S.C. 
§1601 (G) (Supp. IV 1974). 

153. Long Day* s Journey , p. 361. 

154. Ibid., p. 362. 

155. Denver transcript, testimony of Laura Hendee, vice 
principal, Merrill Junior High School, Denver Public 
Schools, pp. 404-05. 



279 



156. Of the 29 case study districts, 10 established magnet 
schools. SAC Case Study Analysis , 1976. 

157. Nell Sweeney, Brown Instructional Center, Louisville, 
Ky., staff interview, July 9, 1976. 

158. Milburn Maupin, deputy superintendent. Federal Programs 
and Human Relations, Jefferson County Public Schools, staff 
interview. Mar. 1, 1976. 

159. J. C. Cantrell, assistant superintendent of 
instruction, Louisville, Ky., staff interview, July 9, 1976. 

160. Morgan v. Kerrigan, civil action. No. 72-9 11-g. Phase 
II Plan, pp. 11-42. 

161. Morgan v. Kerrigan, Draft Revisions of Masters' Report 
(Apr. 17, 1975), Phase II Plan, p. 50. 

162. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, staff report. School 
Desegregation in Boston , (1975) (hereafter cited as School 
Desegregation in Boston ) . 

163. Tulsa, Okla. , Case Study, p. 59. 
16U. Ibid., p. 60. 

165. Ibid. 

166. Gordon Foster, "Desegregating Urban Schools: A Review 
of Techniques," Harvard Educational Review , vol. 4 3, no. 1 
(February 1973), p. 19. 

167. SAC Case Study Analysis . Title IV of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, Section 403, provides funds for such training. 
The Commissioner is authorized, upon application of a school 
board, to make grants to such board to pay, in whole or in 
part, the cost of: (1) giving to teachers and other school 
personnel inservice training in dealing with problems 
incident to desegregation, and (2) employing specialists to 
advise in problems incident to desegregation. For a review 
of Title IV see U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, Title IV 
and School Desegregation, A Study of a Neglected Federal 
Program (1973) . 

168. Minneapolis, Minn., Case Study, pp. 15-16. 



280 



169. Berkeley, Calif., Case Study, p. 13-11. 

170. Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 192 (1973) and 
Evie Dennis, community specialist, Denver, Colo., staff 
interview, Dec. 15, 1975. 

171. Robert Wynkoop, staff advisory specialist, Jefferson 
County Public Schools, interview. Mar. 3, 1976. 

172. Louisville transcript, testimony of Ernest Grayson, 
superintendent, Jefferson County Public Schools, p. 7U5. 

173. James Coleman, associate superintendent for community 
development, Jefferson County Public Schools, interview, 
March 3, 1976. 

17a. Louisville transcript, testimony of Scott Horan, 
intergroup and community relations specialist; and Fannie 
Gul, human relations coordinator, pp. 502-13. 

175. SAC Case Study Analysis , 1976. 

176. Louisville transcript, testimony of W. Carlyle Maupin, 
p. 643. 

177. Tampa transcript, testimony of Frank Farmer, assistant 
superintendent of instruction, Hillsborough County Schools, 
p. 30U; Dora L. Reeder, principal, and Arthur Flemming, 
teacher, Dunbar Elementary School, pp. 650-53. 

178. Kalamazoo, Mich., Case Study, pp. 12-13. 

179. Denver transcript, testimony of Ramona McHenry, 
teacher, Merrill Junior High School, p. U21. 

180. Ibid., testimony of Bettye Emmerson, pp. 676-79. 

181. Tampa transcript, testimony of Patricia Wingo, H. B. 
Plant High School, p. 562. 

182. Ibid., pp. 307-08. 

183. Denver transcript, testimony of James Ward, principal. 
Manual High School, p. 815. 

18U. Ibid., testimony of William Corker, pp. 793-9U. 



281 



185. Berkeley transcript, testimony of Donna McKinney, pp. 
B-106-07. 

186. Tampa transcript, p. 218. 

187. Thelma Shuman, interview, Tampa, Fla. , Feb. 27, 1976. 

188. Tampa transcript, testimony of Katie Keene, p. 223. 

189. Nancy H. St. John, School Desegregation; Outcomes for 
Children (New York, N.Y.: Wiley, 1974), pp. 125-26. 

190. Stamford transcript, testimony of John Brown, director 
of Stamford's community action program, p. 161. 

191. Berkeley transcript, testimony of Beatrice Terreira, 
principal, Martin Luther King Junior High School, p. A-207. 

192. Better Chance to Learn , p. 39. 

193. Ibid. 

194. Boston transcript, testimony of Paul Parks, secretary 
of education. Office of the Governor, p. 42. 

195. Stamford transcript, testimony of Michael Palmer, 
student. West Hill High School, pp. 222-23. 

196. Edgar G. Epps, "The Impact of School Desegregation on 
Aspirations, Self -Concepts, and Other Aspects of 
Personality," Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 39, no. 2 
(1975) , p. 311. 

197. Stamford transcript, pp. 175-76. 

198. Berkeley transcript, testimony of Jesse Anthony, music 
teacher, pp. B-50-51. 

199. St. John, Outcomes for Children , p. 108. 

200. Providence, R.I., Case Study, p. 18. 

201. Egerton, Promise of Progress , p. 7. 

202. Ibid. 

203. Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 192 (1973). 



282 



204. Denver transcript, testimony of Bettye J. Emerson, p. 
672; Letter to the President of the United States, Apr. 21, 
1971, signed by representatives of 13 Denver-based Hispanic 
organizations (Commission files) . 

205. Denver Superintendent's Report to the Honorable William 
E. Doyle, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, required by the 
April 17, 197U, Final Judgment and Decree, Civil Action No. 
C-1U99, Court Order No. 19-1. 

206. Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F. Supp. 410, U72 (D. Mass. 
197U) , aff'd sub nom. Morgan v. Kerrigan, 502 F.2d 58 (1st 
Cir. 1974) cert denied 44 L.W. 3713 (June 15, 1976). 

207. School Desegregation in Boston , p. 15. 



2 08. Ibid, appendix C. 

209. Ibid. 

210. Berkeley transcript, testimony of Carol Sibley, p. A- 
44. 

211. Ibid. 

212. Berkeley, Calif., Case Study, pp. 2, 15. 



213. Walter Alexander Mercer, Humanizing the Desegregated 
School (New York: Vantage Press, 1973), p. 22. 

214. See for example, Arthur O. White, "Florida's State 
School Chief and Desegregation," Integra teducat ion (1974) p. 
38. 

215. Mercer, Humanizing the Desegregated School , p. 22. 

216. Leon Hall, "School Desegregation: A (Hollow?) Victory," 
Inequality in Education , no. 17 (1974) , p. 7. 

217. 419 F.2d 1211, at 1218 (5th Cir. 1970). Similar 
standards are used by HEW in determining Title VI and 
Emergency School Aid Act regulations, 40 Fed. Reg. 25171, 
June 12, 1975. 



283 



218. Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough 
county, Florida, No. 3554 Civ. T-K (M.D. Fla. May 11, 1971). 
This order contains a history of the case from its beginning 
in December 19 58. 

219. Data provided by the Office of Pupil Administrative 
Services. Report on Racial Breakdown of Pupils and Staff, 
submitted annually to the Honorable Bejamin Krentzman, U.S. 
District Court. 

220. Ibid. 

221. Ibid. 

222. Diminishing Barrier , p. 13. 

223. Rodney C. Colson, assistant superintendent, 
Hillsborough County Schools, staff interview, Feb. 12, 1976. 

224. Ibid. 

225. Egerton, Report Card from the South, p. 35. 

226. Ibid. 

227. Roger Mills and Miriam Bryan, Testing — Grouping; The 
New Segregation in Southern Schools (Atlanta, Ga.: Southern 
Regional Council, 1976), pp. 45-46. They have defined 
"racially identifiable classroom" as one in which the racial 
composition of the class varies more than 2 percent from 
the racial composition of the grade at the school. 

228. Winifred Green, "Separate and Unequal Again," 
Ineguality in Education , July 1973, p. 15. 

229. Mills and Bryan, Testing — Grouping , p. 46. 

230. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, Toward Quality 
Education For Mexican Americans (1974) , p. 23 (hereafter 
cited as Toward Quality Education ) . 

231. Warren G. Findley and Miriam M. Bryan, Ability 
Grouping: 1970 (Athens, Ga. : University of Georgia, Center 
for Educational Improvement, 1970) , p. 3. Also, see Toward 
Quality Education , p. 24. Gary Orfield, "How to Make 
Desegregation Work: The Adaptation of Schools to Their 



284 



Newly- Integrated Student Bodies," Law and Contemporary 
Problems , vol. 39, (Spring 1975), pp. 327-28. 

232. Toward Quality Education , p. 25. 

233. National Education Association, "Ability Grouping: 
Teacher Opinion Poll," NEA Journal , vol. 57 (February 1968) , 
p. 53. 

23U. Stamford transcript, testimony of Robert Kelley, p. 
291. 

23 5. Stamford transcript, testimony of Michael Steadman, p. 
213. 

236. Earl Ogletree and Velma E. Ujlaki, "The Effects of 
Ability Grouping on Inner City Children," Illinois Schools 
Journal , vol. 50 (1970), pp. 63-70. See also Leon J. 
Lefkowitz, "Ability Grouping: De Facto Segregation," The 
Clearing House , vol. U6, no. 5 (January 1972) , pp. 293-97, 
and Findley and Bryan, Ability Grouping; 1970 , pp. 31-3 8. 

237. Stamford transcript, testimony of Michael Palmer, pp. 
212-13. 

238. see, e.g. Lemon v. Bossier Parish School Board, I^U 
F.2d 1400 (5th Cir. 1971) ; United States v. Sunflower County 
School District, 430 F.2d 839, 841 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 
398 U.S. 951 (1970) . 

239. see, e.g., Moses v. Washington Parish School Board, 456 
F. 2d 1285 (5th Cir.) cert, denied, 409 U.S. 1013 (1972). 

240. See, e.g., Acree v. County Board of Education, 458 F. 
2d 486, 488, no. 3 (5th Cir.) cert, denied, 409 U.S. 1006 
(1972) . 

241. Tampa transcript, testimony of Raymond Shelton, 
superintendent, Hillsborough County Public Schools, p. 306. 

242. Denver transcript, testimony of Roscoe Davidson, 
associate superintendent for elementary education, Denver 
Public Schools, p. 574. 

243. Dorchester County, Md. , Case study, pp. 23-24. 



285 



24a. Testimony of principal. Smiley Junior High School, 
Denver transcript, p. 433. 

245. Toward Quality Education , p. 21. 

246. Tampa transcript, testimony of Frank Farmer, assistant 
superintendent of instruction, p. 304. 

247. EMR usually means mildly retarded, where a student is 
between two and three standard deviations below the norm; 
that is, having an IQ score between 50 and 70. Michael S. 
Sorgen, "Testing and Tracking in the Public Schools," 
Hastings Law Journal , vol. 24 (1972-73), pp. 1168 and 
Testimony of Mark Lohman, U.S., Senate, Hearings Before the 
Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity, 9 2d 
Cong., 1st Sess. , p. 10170. 

248. Toward Quality Education , p. 29. 

249. Jane Mercer, Labelling the Mentally Retarded (Berkeley: 
University of California Press, 1973) , p. 189. 

250. Toward Quality Education, p. 28. 

251. Ibid., pp. 59. 

252. Tampa transcript, testimony of Helen Wilds, pp. 617-22. 

253. Robert Wynkoop, staff advisory specialist for 
desegregation, Jefferson County Public Schools, interview. 
Mar. 3, 1976. See also Louisville transcript, testimony of 
Joel Henning, assistant superintendent for institutional 
organization, pp. 693-95, 702-03. 

254. Louisville transcript, testimony of Joel Henning, pp. 
694-95. 

255. For a discussion of court cases see "School 
Desegregation Litigation in the Seventies and the Use of 
Social Science Evidence: An Annotated Guide," Law and 
Contemporary Problems , vol. 39, no. 1 (Winter 1975), pp. 50- 
133. 

256. 343 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D. Cal. 1972). 

257. Civ. No. C-70-37 R.F.R. (N.D. Cal. June 18, 1973). 



286 



258. Long Day's Journey , p. 351. 

259. Ibid., p. U20. 

260. Tampa transcript, testimony of Debra Goldsmith, 
student, Brandon High School, p. 570. 

261. Denver transcript, testimony of Vernon Owens, p. 890. 

262. Louisville transcript, testimony of Tuwana Roberts, 
student. Central High School, p. 619. 

263. Tampa transcript, testimony of Dora Feeder, dean of 
girls, Dunbar Elementary School, p. 662. 

26U. Little Rock, Ark., Case Study, p. U5. 

26 5. Tampa transcript, pp. 533-35. 

266. Ibid., testimony of Debra Goldsmith, student, Brandon 
High School, p. 571. 

267. Ibid. 

268. Boston transcript, testimony of Joseph Day, teacher and 
coach, p. 285. 

269. Tulsa, Okla. , Case Study, p. 53. 

270. Tampa transcript, testimony of Thelma Shuman, p. 53U. 

271. Tampa transcript, testimony of Ralph Fisher, dean of 
boys, Monroe Junior High School, pp. 600-01. 

272. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, national survey data, 
1976. Data compiled from approximately 500 desegregated 
school districts. 

273. Denver transcript, testimony of Chris Sturgis, student. 
Manual High School, p. 820. 

27U. Ten Communities , p. 67. 

275. Ibid. 

276. Boston transcript, testimony of Jan Douglas, student, 
Jeremiah E. Burke High School, p. 332. 



287 



277. Egerton, Report Card from the South , p. 11. 

278. Tampa transcript, testimony of Graig Allen, student, 
Dowdell Junior High School, p. 77t». 

279. Ibid., testimony of Aileen Miller, student, Greco 
Junior High School, p. 773. 

280. Ibid. , testimony of Janet M. Middlebrooks, PTA 
president, p. 654. 

281. Stamford transcript, testimony of Bruce Spain, student. 
West Hill High school, pp. 229-230. 

282. Minneapolis transcript, testimony of George Sell, 
student, Minneapolis Central High School, p. 824. 

283. Stamford transcript, testimony of Michael Palmer, 
student. West High School, p. 232. 

28U. Louisville transcript, testimony of Terry McAnnally, 
student, Thomas Jefferson High School, p. 29. 

285. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, prehearing 
interviews, Hillsborough County, Fla. 

286. Denver transcript, testimony of Chris Sturgis, student. 
Manual High School, pp. 826-27. 

287. Hall, "Hollow Victory," p. 12. 

288. Ten Communities , p. 18. 

289. Springfield, Mass., Case Study, p. 11. 

290. Denver transcript, testimony of LaRue Belcher, 
principal, Thomas Jefferson High School, p. 8U3; testimony 
of Bryan Tooley, student, Morey Junior High School, p. 468. 

291. Ibid., testimony of the Reverend Richard S. Kerr, 
director. People Let's Unite for Schools (PLUS), p. 111. 

292. Ibid., testimony of James Ward, principal. Manual High 
School, p. 792. 

293. Ibid., p. 791. 



288 



29U. Minneapolis transcript, testimony of George Sell, 
student, Minneapolis Central High School, p. 806. 

295. Berkeley transcript, testimony of Ramona Maples, 
associate director of research and evaluation, Berkeley 
School District, p. A-89. 

296. Denver transcript, testimony of Deborah Wheeler, 
student. Manual High School, p. 833. 

297. Ibid., testimony of Ruth C. Johns, teacher, Moore 
Elementary School, p. 966. 

298. Tampa transcript, testimony of Harold Clark, area 
general director, p. 393. Student advisory committees are 
established pursuant to ESAA regulations. 

299. Egerton, Report Card from the South , p. UO. 

300. Ten Communities , p. 107. 

301. Denver transcript, testimony of Harold Scott, 
principal. Smiley Junior High School, p. 436. 

302. Bogalusa, La., Case Study, p. 40. 

303. Ibid., pp. U1, t»3. 
30a. Ibid., p. 43. 

305. Denver transcript, testimony of Cynthia McLelland, 
student, John F. Kennedy High School, p. 896. 

306. U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
Factsheet, Student Discipline, September 1975. 

307. See, for example. Southern Regional Council and Robert 
F. Kennedy Memorial, The Student Pushout — Victim of 
Continued Resistance to Desegregation (Atlanta: 1973) 
(hereafter cited as The Student Pushout ) ; Children's Defense 
Fund, School Suspensions; Are They Helping Children? 
(Washington, D.C. : 1975) (hereafter cited as School 
Suspensions) ; Children's Defense Fund, Children Out of 
School in America (Washington, D.C: 1974) (hereafter cited 
as Children Out of School) . 



289 



308. Mark G. Yodof, "Suspensions and Expulsion of Black 
Students from the Public Schools: Academic Capital 
Punishment and the Constitution," Law and Contemporary 
Problems , (Spring 1975), no. 2, p. 379. 

309. The Student Pushout, pp. 12-16. 

310. Paul R. Wharton, assistant superintendent, Hillsborough 
County Public Schools, inter-office communication to 
secondary principals, on suspensions, Jan. 19, 1976, and 
Egerton, Report Card from the South, p. 36. 

311. Tampa transcript, testimony of Paul R. Wharton, 
assistant superintendent, Hillsborough County Schools, 
p. 311. 

312. Southern Report Card from the South, p. 36. 

313. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45 (Public 
Welfare) discrimination against children, states that a 
school district is not eligible for assistance under the 
Emergency School Aid Act if it has a procedure which results 
in discrimination, including disciplinary sanctions which 
discriminate against minority-group children. 

31U. Gilbert D. Roman, Director, Office for Civil Rights, 
HEW, letter to Louis J. Kishkunas, superintendent, Denver 
School District No. 1, July 13, 1975. 

315. Denver transcript, testimony of James E. Esquibil, p. 
973. 

316. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, prehearing 
interviews, Louisville, Ky. 

317. Louisville Times, Apr. 6, 1976, "Did Laxity in City 
High Schools Contribute to Suspensions," pp. A-1, A-8. 

318. Ibid. Arthur Draut, principal, Waggener High School 
with 61.8 suspensions for every 100 black students. 

319. Ibid. Dr. Irvin Rice, principal. West Point High 
School with 81.2 suspensions for every 100 black students. 

320. Ibid. Principal, name withheld by request. 



2 90 



321. Ibid. r Joseph McPherson, principal. Central High 
School, 13.6 suspensions for every 100 black students. 

322. Berkeley transcript, p. A-99. 

323. Long Day* s Journey , p. 388. 
32a. Ibid., p. 390. 

325. Ibid., p. 401-2. 

326. William H. Thomas, Director, Office for Civil Rights 
(Region IV) , HEW, letter to Dr. Brandon Sparkman, 
superintendent, Richland County School District No. 1, Aug. 
14, 1975; also HEW internal report on Student Discipline 
Actions. 

327. Tampa transcript, testimony of Augusta Thomas, 
director, Tampa Urban League, p. 801. 

328. Long Day* s Journey, p. 379. 

329. Remarks of Blanche Cooper, director of community 
development, Jefferson County Public Schools, at the 
National Conference on Desegregation Without Turmoil, May 
19, 1976, Washington, D.C. Ms. Cooper was a panelist in a 
workshop. Influencing Student Disciplinary Procedures in a 
Desegregation Program. 

330. U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
Office for Civil Rights, internal files. 

331. Long Day* s Journey, p. 397. 

332. See, 327 F. Supp. 930 (S.D. Fla. 1971) ; Law and 
Contempora ry Problems, vol. 39, no. 2, p. 397. 

333. Ibid. 

334. The Student Pushout, p. 4. Roughly 9.1 percent of 
blacks, 6.4 percent of Chicanos, and 4.9 percent of Anglos 
were suspended. Note: Sources quoted refer to expulsions 
rather than suspensions which is an apparent error. 

335. Law and Contemporary Problems , vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 401- 
03; Hawkins v. Coleman, 376 F. Supp. 1330 (N.D. Tex. 1974). 



291 



336. William H. Thomas, Director, Office for Civil Rights 
(Region IV) HEW, letter to Brandon Sparkman, superintendent, 
Richland County School District No. 1, Aug. 14, 1975; also 
HEW internal report on Student Discipline Actions. 

337. Law and Contemporary Problems , vol. 39, no. 2, p. 386. 

338. Ibid., p. 386. 

339. Ibid. 

3U0. Tampa transcript, testimony of Joanna Jones, Project 
Youth director, Tampa Urban League, and member of the 
biracial advisory committee, p. 788. 

341. U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
Office for Civil Rights, internal report on Student 
Discipline Actions. 

342. Louisville Times, Apr. 6, 1976, p. A-98. 

343. Berkeley transcript, testimony of Astor Mizuhard, 
principal of Franklin Intermediate, p. A- 197-8. 

344. Denver transcript, p. 859. 

345. Tampa transcript, testimony of Richard Rodd, chairman, 
biracial advisory committee, p. 445. 

346. See, A Report of Student Suspensions in Selected High 
Schools of Jefferson County Public Schools to the Honorable 
James T. Gordon, Senior Judge, United States District Court, 
from E. C. Grayson, superintendent, Apr. 28, 1976. 



347. U.S., Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 
Office for Civil Rights, Martin H. Gerry, Acting Director, 
Memorandum for Chief State School Officers, "Recordkeeping 
on Student Actions in School Districts," August 1975, rev. 
January 1976. 

348. Louisville transcript, testimony of Camellia Brown, 
chairperson, Louisville-Jefferson County Students Defense 
report, p. 578. 



2 92 



IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

At the end of what has been an exciting experience for 
the members of the Commission, there is one conclusion that 
stands out above all others: desegregation works. It is 
working in Hillsborough County, Florida; and Tacoma, 
Washington; Stamford, Connecticut; and Williamsburg County, 
South Carolina; Minneapolis and Denver, and in many other 
school districts where citizens feel that compliance with 
the law is in the best interests of their children and their 
communities. It is even working in the vast majority of 
schools in Boston and Louisville in spite of the 
determination of some citizens and their leaders to thwart 
its progress. The efforts of law-abiding citizens in these 
and other desegregating districts are not well-known, 
although they are more representative of the total 
desegregation experience than the more publicized resistance 
of opponents. 

To be sure, none of these districts is without its 
problems; for some, the road ahead may be as difficult as 
the ground already covered. Beliefs and practices nurtured 
in decades of slavery and inequality do not die easily. But 
these communities have learned that through positive, 
forceful leadership and careful planning by a broad cross- 

293 



section of the commxinity, school desegregation can be 
implemented smoothly. 

The support given by local leaders in implementing 
desegregation peacefully generally results in beneficial 
byproducts. School officials throughout the country have 
noted that institutional renewal frequently accompanies the 
desegregation process. The educational program is reviewed 
and revamped to include new instructional techniques and 
materials, to provide for the needs of language-minority 
students, to develop programs to assist gifted children and 
those achieving below their potential, and to promote racial 
and ethnic harmony among faculty and students. In addition, 
community race relations and the level of parental 
participation in school activities usually improve during 
the course of desegregation. School districts which have 
experienced desegregation for several years generally report 
that minority student achievement rises and that these 
students often exhibit greater motivation that ultimately 
leads to pursuit of higher education. Majority group 
students hold their own academically and they commonly 
report that experiences with minority students have 
dispelled long-held stereotypes. 

While many school districts have implemented 
desegregation plans, numerous others remain segregated. 



294 



Preliminary data for 197^ from the Office for Civil Rights 
of HEW reveal that in districts sampled each year from 1970 
to 1974, 4 of every 10 black students and 3 of 10 Hispano 
students attended schools at least 90 percent minority. 
There were wide regional variations: those schools enrolled 
23 percent of the black students in the South, 58 percent of 
black students in Border and Northeastern States, 62 percent 
in the Midwest, and 45 percent in the West.* 

Segregation remains a problem, particularly in large 
districts. A recent analysis of school districts 20 to 4 
percent black shows that large districts across the country 
tend to be more segregated than small ones. Virtually no 
blacks in very small districts (less than 2,000 students) 
were in schools where minorities represented more than 50 
percent of the enrollment. On the other hand, in school 
districts with more than 100,000 students, 3 of every 5 

black students in northern schools and 2 of every 5 black 
students in southern schools attended schools with an 
enrollment greater than 50 percent minority. Furthermore, 

30 percent of the black students in these northern districts 
and 15 percent in the southern districts attended schools 
that were over 90 percent minority. 2 (see table 4.1) 



295 









•0 






















0) 




















•o 




















e 




















« 




















■p 




















•P 












■p 








•o: 












JS 




C 
















tp 




•H 




H 

















M 

















:s 









x;v( 














10 




u o 










c 




iH 




CO 9> 










m "O 






n 
















•H V4 










<M 


M 


o o 


o 


CN 


13^ 






a> 







0) 




• 










u 






s 


o 


o 


If) 


o 


S Vi 






Q^ 


+J 






^ 


m 


fl 






£ 


O 


c 












C PC 








(0 


0) 












•H 




U H 


E 
















n 


H 












•O %»n 








H 












<V E (N 




■p +> 















+> ro ar 




c 


c 


u 












M 0) 




0) 


0) 


s 


o 


o 


o 


CO 


VO 


M • 




M 


M 




>f> 


t 




, 




0) 




0) 


« 


;i< 




o 


o 


o 


o 


M (0 » 


w 


0* Qi 


u 


u 






3- 


VO 




t 






flj 


0) 










* C in 


a- 


O O 


:A 


s 










-0 r- 


« 


ID 4- 


m 










§^?^ 


H 


n 





4^ 




£ x: 


,c x: 


Pm S -' 


X) 


H +J 


c 




•p 


p 


p 


p 


tc 


(0 







0) 




3 


M 


3 


M 


a; IT) 


Eh 


£ 


o 


o 













o 


CD 0) * 




CM 


M 




CO z 


CO z 


C-H 




u 




« 












<U > t 




(0 


n 

4J 


Oi 












«4J H 
0) Q 




e 

















Q > 




•H-H 










o 




•o 






V4 










o 




CO c • 




■P-P 










o 




- ITJ ? 




fi n 










k 




C 0) 




fi^ 










o 




0) C -H 




lO 






o 




o 




H > 




H 








o 




^■ 




•o CO 0) 




f-l 








o 








iH C Oi 




P 








k 




c 




•H -H 




M 








tN 




(« 




x: »^ 




S 






■p 






s: 




U s (0 




H 






c 


c 




p 




c 




^ 






1 


(0 




^4 




.. c .S 




U 






iH 


p 




0) 




<D m p 




Id 






rH 






p 




U E Id 




H 






2 


(0 




fl) 




MHO 




(R 






(0 




a> 




9 (U 3 










s 


0) 




M 




"O "O 










^ 




w 




CO u 


wi 



296 



On balance, however, this report makes it clear that 
substantial progress is being made in the desegregation of 
our schools. If the Nation is to build on this progress, 
there are certain "musts" that the Commission believes need 
to be kept in mind. 

1. Leaders at the national. State, and local levels 
must accept the fact that desegregation of the Nation's 
schools is a constitutional imperative. 

The peaceful implementation of desegregation is not by 
chance. Luck plays no part in determining the degree of 
disruption that a desegregating school district experiences. 
One of the most important conclusions of this report is that 
the support of school officials and other local leaders 
strongly influences the outcomes of desegregation. The 
public generally follows the lead of officials who are 
responsible for school desegregation. Commitment and firm 
support from these officials encourage law-abiding citizens 
to make desegregation work. Under this type of leadership, 
even opponents of school desegregation conform to the 
standards of behavior exemplified by their leaders, thus 
ensuring tranquility and a peaceful learning environment for 
their children. Officials who are committed to 
desegregation and act decisively to ensure peaceful 



297 



inplementation are likely to be rewarded with a relatively 
smooth, peaceful transition. 

Leaders who are committed to ensuring that 
desegregation works will solicit involvement of the 
community at various stages of the process, from planning 
through implementation and monitoring. When the conununity 
is involved in planning, it is committed to the outcome. 
During planning and implementation, for example, citizens 
may operate rumor control and information centers or work at 
their children's schools. Through a variety of actions, 
their frustrations and anxieties are channelled into 
productive activity; as they learn about the school 
desegregation plan, they are reassured, and, in turn, can 
inform and allay fears of the rest of the community. 
Disruptions are minimized. 

Conversely, when school administrators and other public 
officials are opposed to school desegregation and attempt to 
appease opponents, the voices of resisters often are 
stronger than constitutional imperatives. Taking their cue 
from their leaders, citizens who would ordinarily comply are 
encouraged to resist. Supporters of desegregation are 
discouraged from taking a public stand. The result is 
turmoil and confusion and sometimes violence. The 
occurrence of disruption is basically a self-fulfilling 

298 



prophecy. If local officials and leaders believe disruption 
will occur and do nothing to prevent it, it is much more 
likely to occur. 

A peaceful transition from segregation to desegregation 
is not the end but only the beginning. Successful 
desegregation requires continued monitoring, evaluation, and 
periodic review and sometimes revision of the original plan. 
School officials and community people must deal with certain 
"second generation" problems that may jeopardize the goal of 
desegregation. These problems include classroom 
segregation, inequitable disciplinary procedures, low 
minority participation in extracurricular activities, lack 
of minority representation on administrative and teaching 
staffs, and the absence of multicultural, bilingual 
education for language-minority students. 

These problems are not inherent in the school 
desegregation process. Where they do occur, they result 
from lack of foresight, planning, and evaluation on the part 
of school officials and the community. But where school 
officials act affirmatively to promote successful 
desegregation, these problems are less likely to result. 
This action should take place continuously once the 
desegregation plan in put into effect. Efforts to upgrade 
the curriculum and to hire minority staff, for example, must 



299 



continue far beyond the original pupil assignment plan. 
When desegregation is seen in this way — as a process — school 
officials can continue to provide all students a better 
educational environment. 

School officials and other local leaders are dependent 
on the tone set by leaders at the national level. This tone 
is determined not only by the statements officials make 
about the desirability of desegregation, but also by the 
support they give, or fail to give, to court decisions 
designed to implement the constitutional rights of children 
and young people. Under our system of government, in the 
absence of action by the executive or legislative branches, 
the courts when faced with the issue must determine what 
steps should be taken to ensure that the constitutional 
right to equal educational opportunity is provided. The 
Commission believes, for constitutional reasons, that 
efforts by either the executive or the legislative branches 
to curb the power of the courts, in the final analysis, will 
not prevail. Such efforts undermine the desegregation 
process and jeopardize the rights of minority students. 
Furthermore, these attempts contribute to the position of 
some individuals that desegregation can be avoided. 

This Commission, therefore, takes issue with the 
President and those Members of Congress who seek to curb the 

300 



role of the courts. The President's recent submission of 
the School Desegregation Standards and Assistance Act of 
1976 falls within this category. This bill seeks both to 
narrow the definition of illegal segregation and to restrict 
the scope of remedies available to the courts, 

2. The Federal Government must strengthen and expand 
programs designed to facilitate the school desegregation 
process. 

For example. Congress should increase the funding and 
authority, under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1961, 
of General Assistance Centers providing technical assistance 
and human relations training for desegregating school 
districts. 3 Additional funding should be made available 
under the Emergency School Aid Act of 1972 for curriculum 
development and teacher training in desegregating school 
systems.* Congress should provide funds to assist in the 
construction of new schools and additions to existing ones 
when such construction will maxinjize desegregation and 
lessen the need to increase student transportation for 
desegregation. Also, Congress should rescind its 
prohibition against the use of Federal financial assistance 
for student transportation for desegregation. 

3. There must be vigorous enforcement of laws which 
contribute to the development of desegregated communities. 



301 



The President and the Congress should make a concerted 
effort to provide the authority and resources necessary for 
facilitating metropolitan residential desegregation and 
thereby maximize school desegregation. Each State receiving 
Federal housing and community development grants should be 
required to establish a metropolitan agency with authority 
to plan and implement a program for metropolitan housing 
development, including provision of adequate, moderate- and 
low- income housing throughout the metropolitan area and 
various services to assist minority families to secure 
housing outside central cities. A special tax incentive 
should be granted to families who select housing in areas 
where residents are predominantly of another race or ethnic 
group. The Congress should strengthen the enforcement of 
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 by authorizing 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to issue 
cease-and-desist orders to end discriminatory housing 
practices. 

In addition, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development should assign the highest priority to 
enforcement of fair housing laws, including an expanded 
Title VIII compliance review program. Such a program would 
require development of affirmative housing opportunities 
plans, providing for review and revision of local zoning 

302 



ordinances, building codes, land use policies, real estate 
practices, and rental policies that prohibit or discourage 
housing opportunities for minorities. 

fi, A major investment of time and resources must be 
made in order to deal with misconception s relative to 
desegregation. 

Many of these misconceptions grow out of 
misunderstanding of what is constitutionally required. One 
of the most popular misconceptions is the view that 
segregation in the North and West arises from "natural 
causes" in contrast to the "separate" schools imposed by law 
in 17 Southern and Border States prior to 19 5t. The Supreme 
Court of the United States expressly spoke to such State- 
required separation, termed de jure in the Brown decision of 
195U. In other sections of the country, however, 
segregation (often flourishing without mandatory or 
permissive statutes) was termed de facto, meaning that it 
arose without official action or acquiescence and therefore 
was not a constitutional violation. 

It is incorrect to say, however, that in the absence of 
a State law requiring segregation, any existing segregation 
is de facto. Federal courts have ordered desegregation in 
northern and western jurisdictions only when faced with 
evidence showing that local or State school officials have 

303 



deliberately used their powers to foster segregated schools, 
often despite State law to the contrary. It is this abuse 
of the State's authority, vested in local school boards or 
State education agencies, which is the essence of the 
difference between de facto and de jure segregation. It is 
the culpability of these officials in causing or 
intensifying segregation at the door of the State, and it is 
this "State action" which fornvs the basis for finding a 
constitutional violation. Such State action is not de 
facto, but is actually another form of de jure segregation, 
and thus, under current constitutional law, a proper matter 
for Federal judicial intervention. The desegregation of 
schools is necessary to eliminate the current effects of 
these unlawful acts of State or local officials who have 
used their powers to cause and maintain separation of 
children of different races or ethnic backgrounds in public 
schools. Some of the methods used by local or State school 
officials include: 

1. Authorizing the construction of new schools in places 
where the resulting "neighborhood" attendance area will be 
predominantly uniracial despite the availability of other 
sites that would be available to students of different 
races. 

2. Gerrymandering school attendance zones in a manner 
designed to maintain segregated schools by following racial 
shifts in population. 



304 



3. Changing the total enrollment of existing schools 
through the use of portable classrooms, permanent building 
additions, or double sessions in order to accommodate 
changes in the population of one race or ethnic group. 

U. Utilizing racially-oriented feeder patterns instead of 
neutral geographic boundaries to determine the succession of 
schools a child will attend throughout that child's public 
school years. 

The Supreme Court, in deciding its first northern 

school desegregation case, found that intentional actions of 

School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, had resulted in 

segregation: 

...respondent School Board alone, by use of 
various techniques such as manipulation of student 
attendance zones, school site selection and a 
neighborhood school policy, created or maintained 
racially or ethnically (or both racially and 
ethnically) segregated schools throughout the 
school district. .. .5 

In Detroit, Michigan, a similar finding of de jure 

segregation was based upon unconstitutional practices of the 

Detroit school board. Although the Supreme Court overturned 

the interdistrict remedy ordered by the district court and 

affirmed by the appellate court, it affirmed the finding of 

de j ure segregation and cited the following as illegal 

segregative practices: 

(1) creating and maintaining optional attendance 
zones within Detroit neighborhoods undergoing 
racial transition and between high attendance 
areas of opposite predominant racial compositions; 

(2) drawing school attendance zones along 
directional lines which had a segregative effect; 



305 



(3) operating a school transportation program, 
designed to relieve overcrowding, in a manner that 
increased and perpetuated segregation; and 

(I) siting and constructing schools in a manner 
that tended to have segregative effect. • 

As shovm in Detroit, Denver, and other nonsouthern 
school districts, the claim that segregation arises from 
natural causes and is thus beyond the purview of the courts 
frequently fails to withstand close scrutiny. 

Another misconception grows out of the constant use of 
the phrase, "forced busing to achieve racial balance." This 
has been used so often that few stop to consider its 
meaning. 

Courts have not forced students to ride buses. Courts 
have required that boards of education reassign students to 
schools so as to eliminate dual education systems. Buses 
are a convenience made available to 7 percent of the 
students who are so reassigned, just as they are a 
convenience to the remaining 93 percent of the students who 
use them for purposes other than desegregation. 

Most Americans, if asked whether the courts require 
racial balance of schools in districts found to have 
practiced de jure segregation, would probably respond 
affirmatively. This perception, therefore, has become 



306 



another of the misconceptions that preoccupies the public 
and draws attention from other more important issues. 

The truth is that school districts, acting on their own 
initiative or under a voluntary plan, may determine that the 
racial composition of each school should mirror the racial 
composition of the system as a whole. Thus, they may devise 
and implement racial balance plans, but they are not 
required to do so. The Supreme Court in Swann v. Charlotte - 
Mecklenburg Board of Education addressed this issue, saying: 

School authorities are traditionally charged with 
broad power to formulate and implement educational 
policy and might well conclude, for example, that 
in order to prepare students to live in a 
pluralistic society each school should have a 
prescribed ratio of Negro to white students 
reflecting the proportion for the district as a 
whole. To do this as an educational policy is 
within the broad discretionary powers of school 
authorities. ^ 

In providing a remedy for unlawful segregation, there 

is no constitutional or statutory requirement that all 

schools in a district be racially balanced. Courts may not 

and do not require racial balance in an imposed 

desegregation plan. when there has been a findng of de jure 

segregation, the constitutional requirement is that school 

districts eliminate the racial identity of schools in a dual 

school system. Should a school district fail to remedy 

illegal segregation, a Federal court may issue orders to 



307 



abolish such duality. Speaking again for a unanimous Court, 

the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said: 

The constitutional command to desegregate schools 
does not mean that every school in every community 
must always reflect the racial composition of the 
school system as a whole....® 

What purpose was served by the use of racial ratios? The 

Court said: 

We see, therefore, that the use made of 
mathematical ratios was no more than a starting 
point in the process of shaping a remedy, rather 
than an inflexible requirement. .. .As we said in 
Green , a school authority's remedial plan or a 
district court's remedial decree is to be judged 
by its effectiveness. Awareness of the racial 
composition of the whole school system is likely 
to be a useful starting point in shaping a remedy 
to correct past constitutional violations.' 

There is a mistaken belief that the courts have 

required desegregation as a means to obtain what some refer 

to as "quality" education. No court has made a connection 

between these two concerns. Courts have required school 

desegregation as a means of ensuring equality of educational 

opportunity. Equality of educational opportunity implies, 

moreover, that all children together will share — at the same 

time, and in the same place--whatever quality of education 

the State provides. Commission studies have shown, however, 

that as a result of school desegregation, most school 

district officials feel that there has been an improvement 

in the quality of education for all school children. 



308 



Another misconception relates to the widely-held belief 
that massive white flight results from school desegregation. 
The isolation of minority students in central city districts 
reflects the composition of the population in metropolitan 
areas. For at least three decades, whites have been leaving 
central cities for the suburbs. lo A great many factors have 
contributed to this population shift: relocation of 
employment in suburban areas, the desire for more living 
space, higher incomes, as well as the vinfounded fear of 
lowered property values as the minority population 
increases. Real estate speculators, playing on the fears of 
whites, have engaged in the practice of "blockbusting."** 
The role that desegregation of schools plays in the movement 
of whites to the suburbs is not clear. While certain school 
districts have experienced a significant decline in white 
enrollment, evidence does not support the widely-held belief 
that urban school desegregation causes massive white flight 
and the consequent resegregation of urban schools. 12 jt does 
appear from the evidence, however, that policies and 
practices of Federal, State, and local officials, as well as 
those practices of the private sector, have contributed to 
that movement. 

Regardless of the causes of white flight, it is not a 
constitutionally permissible argument for denying students 

309 



equal protection of the laws. The courts have addressed 

this issue: 

"White flight" is one expression of resistance to 
integration, but the Supreme Court has held over 
and over that courts must not permit community 
hostility to intrude on the application of 
constitutional principles. ...[ D]issidents who 
threatened to leave the system may not be enticed 
to stay by the promise of an unconstitutional 
though palatable plan. * 3 

The Supreme Court in United States v. Scotland Neck City 

Board of Education said: 

...while [white flight] may be cause for deep 
concern to the [school board], it cannot... be 
accepted as a reason for achieving anything less 
than complete uprooting of the dual public school 
system. i* 

The Commission is disturbed that these public 
misconceptions have gained such wide credibility. More 
serious is the increasing willingness of State and Federal 
officials to jeopardize the constitutional rights of 
minority children to equal educational opportunity. 

It is clear that the story of the desegregation of the 
schools of our Nation is an unfinished story. It is also 
clear that in many respects it is an untold story. To date 
the story has been told primarily by focusing on sensational 
developments in some school districts where desegregation is 
underway. Very little has been written about those aspects 
of the story which involve a quiet acceptance of the 



310 



constitutional imperative by thousands of citizens in many 
communities and their successes in implementing the truths 
imbedded in the Constitution. 

The late Branch Rickey, when he was in the middle of 
the battle to open up professional baseball to blacks, urged 
those who were ready to give up "to never accept the 
negative until you have thoroughly explored the positive." 

This report is designed to give the media, leaders in 
and out of public life, and citizens, generally, the 
opportunity to explore the positive and at the same time to 
recognize the nature of the problems that must be solved if 
desegregation is to succeed. 

The Commission believes that a careful reading of the 
experiences of communities included in this report will 
convince the reader that we are moving forward as a Nation 
in our determination to make the Constitution a living 
reality in the lives of thousands of children and young 
people. We believe that such a reading will replace despair 
with hope for those individuals whose opportunities to 
achieve their highest possibilities depend on our 
willingness to do more than pay lipservice to the provisions 
of the Constitution. 

After weighing all the evidence in this report, the 
Commission is convinced that those who are willing to make a 

311 



serious commitment to implementing the truths that are at 
stake in the controversy surrounding desegregation are 
meeting with success. Their success goes beyond simply 
providing for the physical proximity that children of 
different races and ethnicities enjoy in a desegregated 
school. In the past 10 years, desegregated schools have 
brought together more children of different races and ethnic 
groups than at any time in the history of the Nation. The 
opportunity they have, and others who come after them will 
have, to understand, know, and appreciate each other, 
provides the most important elements necessary to the 
success of 200 years of efforts to provide for each American 
the fact and not simply the promise of equality. We believe 
that these successes can be duplicated throughout the 
Nation. 

We recognize that some will differ with the conclusions 
set forth in this report. We urge that these differences be 
identified after and not before examining the evidence. 
This report represents the most intensive effort to date to 
bring together relevant evidence. If the national debate on 
desegregation is based on this and other comparable 
evidence, as contrasted with hasty generalizations drawn 
from a few negative experiences, we have no doubt that the 
Nation will once again demonstrate its ability to deal in a 

312 



constructive manner with a crisis growing out of the 
inplementation of the Constitution of the United States. 



313 



Notes to Chapter IV 

1. congressional Record, 9Uth Cong., 2d Sess., vol. 122, 
no. 95, June 18, 1976, p. 9938. The districts surveyed 
include approximately 92 percent of the Nation's black 
students and 7U percent of the Nation's Hispano students. 
Border States in the survey include the District of Columbia. 

2. The analysis was done by the Children's Defense Fund of 
data collected by the Office for Civil Rights, HEW. See 
Marian Wright Edelman, "Winson and Dovie Hudson's Dream," 
Harvard Educational Review, vol. 45, no. U (1975) , p. 425. 

3. 42 U.S.C. §2000c (1970). 

4. 20 U.S.C. §1606. 

5. Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 413 
U.S. 189, at 192 (1973) . 

6. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974). 

7. 402 U.S. 1, at 16 (1971) . 

8. Id. at 24. 

9. Id. at 25. 

10. Robert C. Weaver, "The Suburbanization of America," 
paper presented at the United States Commission on Civil 
Rights Consultation, "School Desegregation: The Courts and 
Suburban Migration," Washington, D.C., Dec. 8, 1975. 

11. By selling a house to one black family in a white 
neighborhood and convincing white residents that property 
values will subsequently plummet, these speculators buy 
houses inexpensively and sell to black families at inflated 
prices. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, Understanding 
Fair Housing (1972), p. 14. 

12. Christine H. Rossell, "The Political and Social Impact 
of School Desegregation Policy: A Preliminary Report," 
paper presented at the 1975 Annual Meeting of the American 
Political Science Association, San Francisco, Calif. , Sept. 
2-5, 1975. 



314 



13. Brunson v. Board of Trustees, 429 F.2d 820, at 827 (Uth 
Cir. 1970). 

ia. H07 U.S. 484, at 491 (1972). 



315 



r U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1976 626-331/518 






DATE DUE -Marshall Law Library UMAB 



r" LA": mPR 3 199t 

W*fc ■ ' X 



-44 



flClHTB 



pro uw 



M 



^ZS 



iiPfi2 ?i g^ 



i^AY 1 im 



ML 



30 '91 



^^t 



DEC 1 . ^ 1992 



jr~7^ 



^E^ 



840023 (09-83) t> 



UNIV OF MD MARSHALL LAW LIBRARY 



3 m2fl 0110SS7E T 



U. S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

WASHINGTON. D C 20425 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300 



POSTAGE & FEES PAID 
U S COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 



I